What Is An Atheist?

[vicente]

Imagine you forgot who you were. This doesn't necessarily bother you
like some character in a film about amnesia, who struggles to find
the identity people gave them. For you, you stepped into a state where non-attachment and un-predisposition to things is like the innocense of a child exploring life for the first time,...yet, somehow from an adult perspective. That is, when someone says "god bless you" when you sneeze,...instead of accepting it, over and over, as a child, until it becomes the way things are,...you instead, look up the definition of what this god means, for instance:

god n.
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient
originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith
and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
3. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and
worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control
some part of nature or reality.
4. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
5. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their
god.
6. A very handsome man.
7. A powerful ruler or despot.

From the various definitions, you can assume that this god is generally regarded as a being, a supernatural being. Which of course, does not jive with any pantheistic, deistic or even Buddhist point of view.

You then look around for this god,...for signs of its
existence,...however, not the slightest evidence can be found,...not
even theoretically, for quantum cosmology suggests there neither is,
or was, time,...therefore no before and after, no creation, nor
creator.

You release, through an honest inquiry, without belief in previous knowledge, that the Source of who you are, has nothing to do "supernatural beings", religion or beliefs. So people then call you an atheist. So you look the definition of that word,...for example:

atheist, n.
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God(s), supreme
intelligent Being(s) , or personal savior(s).

And you say, Ah!,...I'm an atheist!

http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/God-idea.htm
http://buddhism.koolhost.com/buddhaongod.htm
http://www.darkzen.com/Articles/budd-christ.htm

Someone, I think Voltaire, said, "if cockroaches had a god, he'd be a big, powerful cockroach".

Vicente, 100% atheist
:)

[sahyo]

vicente-'definitioning'-"Vicente, 100% atheist"

[a random hack]

So rather than defining yourself in terms of what 'is', you define yourself in terms of what 'is not'?

:lol:

[sahyo]

vicente...no "disbelieves" if no 'believes' :)

[a random hack]

:)

[sahyo]

:)

[vicente]

That is a good point, but actually Hack,...I was pointing to something else,...not so much defining what I'm not, than playing neti-neti with what believers are not.

To Gnow Thyself (Gnothi Seauton), previous knowledge has no place.

Vicente
:)

[sahyo]

were still definitioning ;)

[vicente]

Without definitioning, as the Buddha's said, the false cannot be seen as the false.

neti-neti
:)

[sahyo]

Vicente, 100% atheist



which is "atheist"?

[fu*]

My arm moves hand
punches key
makes words
and defines what I am.

Silly to me
serious to "you's"

[sahyo]

"which" not referring to defining "atheist"

[sahyo]

My arm moves hand
punches key
makes words
and defines what I am.



ohoh

[fu*]

"ohoh"

was not a "first person" post.
only memory of "silliness"

Posting to self........................less

More............ painting just to see color. A certain color. The color of reflection. The color that is clear until "I" color.

Or to see the color that 'you's' describe. Very very colorfull.



See the bodies
protecting them..selves..................as if

[rich]

fu* posted:My arm moves hand
punches key
makes words
and defines what I am.

Silly to me
serious to "you's"
undefined


Besides being, fed up*, and feeling silly,
be kind to yourself, and feel good about
yourself. :)

[sahyo]

oop

[sahyo]

clicked 'reply' instead 'preview'

More............ painting just to see color. A certain color. The color of reflection. The color that is clear until "I" color.

"reflection"?....which is thinking"The color of reflection. The color that is clear until "I" color."?

which is thinkingclear?coloring?clearcoloring?

can fu* painting using words without thinkingdefining"reflection"?

:)

[sahyo]

can fu* painting using words without thinkingdefining"reflection"?

which is thinking"reflection", fu*?

[Polaris]

Vicente,

I'm not denying you are an atheist but I'm wondering where you found your definition of the word?
atheist, n.
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God(s), supreme
intelligent Being(s) , or personal savior(s).

I've looked up in three sources handy to me (yes, I know there are more than three sources for looking up the meaning of words) and none of those three mentioned anything about denial of the existence of a supreme intelligent being or a personal savior. All my sources say is that an atheist is one who denies the existence of God.

The reason I am so nit-picky about it is that we may never know if there is a supremely intelligent being (certainly we would be presumptuous to assume that we are the most intelligent beings in existence or that you are the most intelligent being even on this planet) and I think that should the situation were to present itself, you would find that you very well may have a personal savior in the form of somebody who might pull you from the flames of your burning house, or out of the depths of the water as you almost drown, or even the paramedic who performs CPR on you out on the sidewalk after you've had "the big one" while on your morning jog.

So I think the reason I don't see those other two inclusions in my dictionary sources is because they are very open to a sort of common daily interpretation and at best, one can only be agnostic about the existence of a supreme intelligence and a personal savior.

You may feel confident about the non-existence of a God but can you really be confident about the non-existence of a supremely intelligent being or personal savior?

My other question is more general while thinking of the whole meaning of the word and the context in which it is used to describe somebody:

Is it possible to be something when referring to something that is non-existent. For example, by calling yourself an atheist you are declaring that you do not believe in God. But in doing so you acknowledge the fact that GOD MUST EXIST TO SOME PEOPLE. If you MUST be an atheist then there MUST be others who are not atheist. If He did not exist to anybody then nobody would believe in God and this whole subject would be moot and would, in fact not exist. ie. If God did not exist to some people then there would be no reason to declare yourself an atheist.

So IMO in your declaration of the denial of the existence of God, I think you have validated his possible existence even further.

Polaris <------------ 100% agnostic (or wishy-washy, if you prefer) ;)

[vicente]

Hey Polaris,...although I do own a few dictionaries, when posting I often use the following link for quick, basic definitions:
http://dictionary.reference.com/

That is a great point about "supreme intelligence"

supreme adj.
1. Greatest in power, authority, or rank; paramount or dominant.
2. Greatest in importance, degree, significance, character, or achievement. The Supreme, the Almighty; God.
3. Ultimate

intelligence n.
1. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
2. The faculty of thought and reason.
3. Superior powers of mind.
4. An intelligent, incorporeal being, especially an angel.
5. Information; news. .
6. Secret information, especially about an actual or potential enemy.
An agency, staff, or office employed in gathering such information.

I would agree that there is a Source, however, I would not call that Source "a supreme intelligence".

Synonyms that I use for Source are:
Unconditional
Causeless
Light
Eternal
Changeless
Dimensionless
Now

If one was to cross-reference what those words point to, with the God of the Abrahamic religions as written in their Holy Books, then it would be quite clear that Source is not their God.

Is there a single scientific-mathematical theory or fact that needed/required a belief in a god as part of its findings?

vicente
:)

[rich]

This was extracted from vicente's post :Synonyms that I use for Source are:
Unconditional
Causeless
Light
Eternal
Changeless
Dimensionless
Now

If one was to cross-reference what those words point to, with the God of the Abrahamic religions as written in their Holy Books, then it would be quite clear that Source is not their God.

Is there a single scientific-mathematical theory or fact that needed/required a belief in a god as part of its findings?

vicente

just your definitions Vicente, and not everyone agrees with them.

[a random hack]

Is there a single scientific-mathematical theory or fact that needed/required a belief in a god as part of its findings

No, and nor can science explain everything.


Oh, more to say, but...........

Play on!
:)

98.7% A-Gnostic :D

[sahyo]

:ph34r: hackingeggnosticing

[Polaris]

Sorry Vicente. I guess there was a bitty misunderstanding. When I used the word "source" I wasn't referring to a source ofa supreme intelligence... I was just referring to the source of your definitions...as in.. what dictionary did you use as your source for your definitions. Sorry about the confusion.

My on-line source is http://www.m-w.com/ :)


Taking your first definition of *Supreme*
1. Greatest in power, authority, or rank; paramount or dominant.

and your first definition of *Intelligence*
1. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.

I would say that there are any number of beings who I probably should consider supremely intelligent :) ;)


2. Greatest in importance, degree, significance, character, or achievement. The Supreme, the Almighty; God.

#2 of the *Supreme* definition may mention God but only as an example or analogy to assist the reader with a sort of mental visual aid because the dictionary acknowledges the fact that for a vast number of people God does exist, thus making this analogy an effective one which almost everyone, even you, can identify with. Even you, a confirmed, card-carrying atheist, recognise that some people believe very strongly in the existence of God and those who do, regard God as a Supreme and Almighty entity. Therefore, this dictionary is, at best agnostic because it does not deny the existence of God. It, in fact, acknowledges that God does exist for some.

My feeling is that I'm not convinced that a person can be 100% atheist as long as they still acknowledge the fact that there are people out there who believe in God 100%. I'm not sure my point of view makes any real sense, mind you. It just seems that in order to confirm yourself as *NOT* being *SOMETHING*, you are in the same breath confirming the possibility that *SOMETHING* else exists. :blink: :unsure:

[vicente]

Hey Polaris,...excellent points, and thanks for that additional on-line reference.

Yes, I can hear what you are saying about dictionaries acknowledging the existence (to stand alone) of a god, for many do believe that a god exists.

As for me, if am understanding you correctly, I do not believe there is anyone who believes 100% in a god. They may think they do, but as beliefs and god(s) are imaginary, meaning not real, why would I consider the 'not real' as real?

I do however consider many atheists as being in the same boat, so to say, as christians, in that one 'believes' in a god, and the other does not 'believe' in a god. For me, I do not believe in gods, nor do not, not believe,...belief arises from thought, and thought is always in the past.

deny
1. To declare untrue; contradict.
2. To refuse to believe; reject.
3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow

So, I would say that my denial of god arises from definition #1,...I declare god, as defined in dictionaries, as untrue. Not specifically untrue for me, but untrue period. I say that there is no:
1. creator; omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes

Yes, I do agree there is a Source,...however, that Source has nothing in common with any religious notion of a god. In fact, to my knowledge, the only religion that recognizes the Source I speak of is Vajrayana Buddhism.

Polaris, as for your last point,...that's a grand point. Of course, I wouldn't say that the Source I mentioned exists. Existence is a rather conceptual thing. The Source I'm speaking of is non-conceptual, athough I often attempt to point with synonyms to commune about it.

For me, atheism is not an opposite of theism, although many atheists, from my observation, are indeed the other side of that coin. In addition, my intent here was to identify, not to identify with, atheism as being an emancipating term,...for example, in the Mel Gibson film Braveheart, where at the end he utters 'FREEDOM',...now, in such a defining moment, utter ATHEISM. In other words, atheism is the freedom to embrace ones own spirit,...and as such, instantly dissolves that which stood between one and their direct spiritual experience.

vicente
:)

[Polaris]

As for me, if am understanding you correctly, I do not believe there is anyone who believes 100% in a god. They may think they do, but as beliefs and god(s) are imaginary, meaning not real, why would I consider the 'not real' as real?

I do however consider many atheists as being in the same boat, so to say, as christians, in that one 'believes' in a god, and the other does not 'believe' in a god. For me, I do not believe in gods, nor do not, not believe,...belief arises from thought, and thought is always in the past.

I think there are people who believe in God 100% and live and are ready to die for that God. I'm not saying I understand since I don't believe in God (nor do I deny God... I am in a holding pattern waiting for the fog to lift)

But I think the crux of what you say is in that quote. That with regards to people who believe in God 100% it might just be a case of "they may think they do" but that's all that really matters sometimes. And yes, I agree that belief arises from thought. But also rising from thought is your position that you do not believe in gods and also you do not, not believe in gods. (a somewhat agnostic point of view, if you ask me ;) ) You are 100% atheist... at least... you think you are.

So since we all regularly use thought to establish our beliefs (or lack thereof) how can we be 100% sure our thinking is ever correct? Who's right?? Maybe God does exist. Maybe all those God believers are right!! :o

Which is why I think I'm 100% agnostic....... I'm the original "Show me" girl. I like tangible proof either way but to be honest, when I ask my Magic 8 Ball if God exists the answer I get is "Signs point to NO". That might be as tangible as it's going to get!! ;)

[vicente]

Well Polaris, I agree, we cannot be certain our 'thinking' is correct,...I'd even say that thinking should always be challenged, and even then, not trusted,...except in relative activities.

From the accepted conceptual views of what god is, as defined in dictionaries, or at least the ones I've seen, I can say without reservation that there is no god. Thus, I can, from one point view, be called an atheist,..that is, a non-theist.

As for those who think they believe in god 100%; that belief is merely the filter through the garments acquired which cloak who they are from themselfs. So, in essence, their perceived 100% belief is a delusion. Remove the veils, and the belief dissolves.

The idea here is that certainity arises from nakedness,...for then we can observe, not limited through thought, but through the heart of our essence.

We must understand the difference between knowledge and gnowledge.

know\no, v. knew, known, know-ing, knows; OE gecnawan, be able to; akin to L. gnovi.
1. to perceive directly through the senses; comprehend through the intellect.
2. to have fixed in the intellect or memory, something as true.
3. to be acquainted with or have a practical understanding of, as through sensory experience; know how to cook.
4. to comprehend noologically; through thought/intellect.

gnow\no, v. gnew, gnown, gnow-ing, gnows; from Gk gnosis, knowledge of spiritual matters.
1. to understand directly through metasensory awareness; comprehend through the heart of essence.
2. to experience unmedia-tedly, something as true.
3. to be acquainted with or have gnostic understanding of, as through metasensory experience; to gnow love.
4. to comprehend ontosophically; through wisdom/gnosis.

:)

[Thomas Knierim]

Hi Vicente,

Would it be possible to provide the sources of your quotations? I am not familiar with the word "gnow". It sounds a bit like participle or perfect form of "to gnaw".

Thanks & Cheers, Thomas

[vicente]

Thomas,...to gnow, gnowledge, gnowing, comes from from gnosis, ie., Gnothi Seauton, not to know thyself, that is, through scientia, but gnow thyself, as in sapientia.

Scientia is knowledge accumulated through concepts, whereas sapientia is gnowledge arising from conceptualessness, as in Tilopa's 28 verse Mahamudra:
http://www.dabase.net/mahamud2.htm

Knowledge always refers to the past,...gnowledge refers to the Now.

Knowledge is attached to thought,...gnowledge arises through thoughtlessness.

Those who know, do not Gnow.

If I quote another, I standardly include the source,...if there is no source included, the quote is most likely my own. If you would specify a particular quote, I'll be glad to expound on it.


vicente
:)

[Thomas Knierim]

Khob khun maak na khrub, Khun Vicente.

That explains it. In Latin sapere is a verb meaning taste of / understand / have sense, and scientia means knowledge / science / skill. Not that I remember any of my Latin classes; I had to look this one up.

Thanks also for the Tilopa link. That's a wonderful text -very Indian- it would of course be even better if it rhymed. Perhaps it does.

Cheers, Thomas

[fu*]

Hi Asheera,

can fu* painting using words without thinkingdefining"reflection"?

which is thinking"reflection", fu*?

Dont mean to ignore, but so hard to answer.

Dont think I can. What puts out seems the same as what colors. I dont type for anothers "thoughts"(well, kind of sometimes). I just type, and fear/think what comes back as me.

"reflection"?....which is thinking"The color of reflection. The color that is clear until "I" color."?

which is thinkingclear?coloring?clearcoloring?

fearing....me
fearing.... not me

fearing dying
fearing life everlasting

fearing understanding
fearing not understanding.

Maybe "I" cant win
But "I" is one tough son of a............

[vicente]

Hey Thomas, I've my own translation of Tilopa's Mahamudra, or Ultimate Teaching,...perhaps it rhymes a little better:

1.The Ultimate Teaching cannot be taught through the senses,
however, by metamorphesizing a winged inner sense,
metasensory Gnowing can reveal,
this mystery to the Heart of our Essence.

2.Space is not understood, but merely perceived as That,
which is filled and unfilled with form;
the Ultimate Teaching is not dependent on object-ivity,
the Whole can only be realized through Wholeness.

3.can a hole be defined by what's around it?
that's not describing the hole;
likewise, Wholeness is unrecognized outside itself,
concepts and forms obscured through illusion.

4.to have a center there must be an edge,
as the ambits dissolve, the center disperses with it;
the here becomes meaningly without a there,
then the truth of Mind is no longer unfamiliar.

5.what shape and colour is a banana?
absorbing all spectral light and reflecting yellow doesn't make it yellow,
while under a microscope, neither has it a shape, until we think one is there;
the Mind's essence is beyond shape and form.

6.the predispositions of a thousand eons is incapable
of concealing the Still HeartLight of Life;
similiarly, the self-imposed cycle of suffering has no power
to cloak the HeartLight of Mind's Essence.

7.there is no void nor vaccum in space,
it is either defined or undefined;
although the true essence of Mind is Light,
that StillCauselessLight cannot be seen, only gnown.

8.the essence of Mind resembles space,
in that it embraces all that is perceived;
Rest, and Be a Silent Witness,
for through Love's Stillness, all worlds dissolve.

9.look at the body/form through a microscope,
the Mind which you do not see, transcends that Duality;
Rest Effortlessly upon the hidden jewel that's you,
Letting Go of object-iveness uncovers the Ultimate Teaching.

10.the HeartLight of the Ultimate Teaching cannot be revealed
through New Age discourses or preceptual Scriptures,
neither from the Mantravada, Paramitas or Tripitaka;
the HeartLight of Mind is shrouded by concepts and whimsy's.

11.attachment to morals or immorals cloaks HeartLight's resplendence,
yet by holding ones tongue still, the intellect quiets its fears and hopes;
then the Causeless fulcrum is embraced,
and the efforts of Duality's struggling seesaw vanish.

12.free from the bondage of beliefs,
the fiction of discourse and Scripture become apparent;
the Ultimate Teaching unbounds the bonds of self-repression,
useless suffering and useless pleasure fad away,
and the DiamondLight of the Ultimate Teaching glistens authentically.

13.ancestral fear driven zealots deride the Ultimate Teaching,
theirs is a life not experienced directly,
always viewed from a predisposed past and anticipatory future;
Real Compassion and Teachers do not avoid,
when either touches your Heart, ecstasy will unfurl.

14.Joy is realized only by Letting Go of the desire for Joy;
desires arise from ordinary knowledge,
they want for things which are not;
In Reality, everything already is.

15.transcending the effects of Duality, all struggle ceases,
the Still Nowness of Life reveals the HeartLight of Mind;
embraced by zero, the origin of ecstasy
where fear filled pasts and hope laden futures never existed.

16.Mind and Truth are synonymous
to seek truth is to believe there is a lie;
the intent of a path is to get, not to Let Go.

17.Enslaved to illusion and its transient conditions,
Duality, is like a projection on a theaters screen;
belief in the dream entanges the believer in a space-time construct,
yet nature's melody does not exist outside of things.

18.renouncing all social and moral rules,
liking nothing, hating nothing, and repiring in amoral innocense;
aware of Effortlessness is the Sly Man's way to uncovering who we are;
walking without footprints, the Ultimate Teaching is realized.

19.we divide life into self and not self,
the here and there, subject and object;
and then try to intregrate illusion with reality;
Enlightenment is the awareness that there is no Duality.

20.Light is not seen, only the conditions which keep it obscure are seen;
the Light at the Heart of Essence has no beginning nor end;
zero dimension, razer of logic, is the Holder of the Whole,
through Original Mind, the illusion of motion is evident.

21.Truth is not a path, but a Stillness,
a passivity not realized through concepts;
concepts are derived and inferred from perception,
perception validates only illusion, not Truth.

22.there is nothing to discover, but only to uncover,
positive and negative do not exist outside intellect;
all situations are neutral and impersonal,
in CauselessNowness the Ultimate Teaching becomes clear.

23.Perception sees itself as the center of the universe
blindly seeking a complete unification with separation;
identification with the universe is an attachment to the dream.

24.Divested cogitation can gaze upon the Original Thought,
divesting useless suffering invites Peace,
divesting useless happiness welcomes Love;
fear clings to past as hope clings to future.

25.The nature of a river meanders, reposes, curves and winds,
yet because Nowness is believed to be useless,
predisposition demands that the current follow you, instead of you flow-ing with it,
through that behavior, fulfillment remains elusive.

26.Triggering transformational experience is not difficult;
Connected Breathing, when activated, can jump-start an atrophied thymus,
Fixed Gazes, with auric vision, can open time to be seen as one,
holding the tongue still, can bring Stillnes to thought.

27.Through unfeigned surrender, HeartLight itself, resplendently springs its metanoia;
clear rapture coalesces from tranquility and insight,
a continuum of awakenings dawn real Compassion,
thus Birthing Human Beingness;
Ascension is merely the Letting Go of the descension.

28.(no response)


Vicente Marco, 2001
:)

[a random hack]

If we gnow God exists, do we need proof, or belief? Nope.
If 'I' met 'God', would 'I' recognise 'Him'? Perhaps.
How?
Comparison of (named)'god'-experience to previously provided description....?
Would we be having this monologue if (some conception of) God did not exist? Nope.
Does God doubt existance of God? Nope.
Does God doubt the existance of Man? ?

"Enlightenment is the awareness"/acceptance(?) " that there is no Duality."

And no lack of duality... :)

[Polaris]

From the accepted conceptual views of what god is, as defined in dictionaries, or at least the ones I've seen, I can say without reservation that there is no god. Thus, I can, from one point view, be called an atheist,..that is, a non-theist.

As for those who think they believe in god 100%; that belief is merely the filter through the garments acquired which cloak who they are from themselfs. So, in essence, their perceived 100% belief is a delusion. Remove the veils, and the belief dissolves.

I'm sorry Vicente. I'm not sure I understand the difference between what you think you are 100% certain about and what somebody else thinks they are 100% certain about. Atheist or Theist.... the conviction to believe 100% in either requires the same level of delusion since God's existence has never been proven or disproven.

As far as the term, "heart of our essence" I question whether such a thing really exists just as I question the existence/non-existence of God. Assuming you use the term "essence" in this case to refer to some unchanging element within ourselves by which we can catagorize and identify something as being uniquely "ours", I wonder if it is possible to have a "heart of our essence" while not having a "self". :huh:

[sahyo]

:D




hifu*ing




fearing....me
fearing.... not me

fearing dying
fearing life everlasting

fearing understanding
fearing not understanding.

yes :D ....clapclapclapclapclapclapping




wording, using, not saying isnotis

looking ....which is processing fear-falseme-falseidentificating?
....which is processing?




Maybe "I" cant win
But "I" is one tough son of a............

is I one tough son of a............? ;)




bowing

[rich]

hiasheera&fu*ing




fearing....me
fearing.... not me

fearing dying
fearing life everlasting

fearing understanding
fearing not understanding.

yes ....clapclapclapclapclapclapping




wording, using, not saying isnotis

looking ....which is processing fear-falseme-falseidentificating?
....which is processing?

replyingprocessingifmeantformeifnotnotreplying
tothetwoofyouwithtwoIDssssssssssssshhush :lol:




Maybe "I" cant win
But "I" is one tough son of a............

is I one tough son of a............?

son??? :)

[sahyo]

IDsssssssssssss?

[sahyo]

which is thinking words id, richie?

[rich]

asheera posted:looking ....which is processing fear-falseme-falseidentificating?
....which is processing?

asheera also posted:IDsssssssssssss?


one person having 2IDssssssssssssssss.(not 21 ID's)
fu* and
asheera

fu*denies this. :huh:
does asheera too? :o
if denials are true, who is fu*, :unsure:
but a fed up asheera?
or is there an illness there?
not wanting to discuss here? B)
or go down in history,
as a great unsolved mystery? :unsure:

[sahyo]

one person having 2IDssssssssssssssss


which is thinking-one-two? :)

[rich]

the person who posts for fu* and asheera
has separate ID's, .......not merged, and
``"```````"`E-ml address``"```````"......,
the........"`-1-2,
that is which is thinking- doing
dinking donging. :P

[sahyo]

richthinkingimagining :)

[rich]

solving mysteriesby imagining, from my sister Guru in thebigview. :D ;) ;)

[sahyo]

richimagining"solving mysteriesby imagining,
from my sister Guru in thebigview."

;) ;) :)

[rich]

imagined images portray
picture image of asheera,
same as fu*, in fantasy imagination . ;) :D

[sahyo]

and if richimag(e)iningwhichnot ceases? :)

[rich]

guess not. when image-in-ing is annoys u then may :blink: resort to illusion or cessation. ;)

[shifu]

What is an atheist? a persona/being who denies everything about (G)god and the likes, whose only purpose in life is to deny. Just only a thought; if God does not exist why spend your life in denial? What a waste! :P

[...]

..for virtually all atheists god does not play a vital role in their lives, therefore 'spending life in denial' is a stupid remark...

[shifu]

[..for virtually all atheists god does not play a vital role in their lives] So, Mr. ... you mean to say, minding one’s own business? Therefore, atheist god is real or it exist? S/He just don’t want to disturb you or you just won’t let him/er in. So, let me paraphrase; an atheist is a persona/being who made an agreement with god or supernatural beings not to interfere on its own affair thus, urge him/her not to play vital role on his life. [therefore 'spending life in denial' is a stupid remark...] Therefore an atheist just ignore god and the likes for his/her own convenience to spend his/her whole life ignoring. :D

[sylph]

shifu, do you believe that pencils can talk? if you don't, then your whole life is consumed by denying that pencils can talk!

if pencils can't talk, why spend your life in denial???

[Polaris]

Originally posted by shifu@Sep 2 2003, 09:01 AM
[..for virtually all atheists god does not play a vital role in their lives] So, Mr. ... you mean to say, minding one’s own business? Therefore, atheist god is real or it exist? S/He just don’t want to disturb you or you just won’t let him/er in. So, let me paraphrase; an atheist is a persona/being who made an agreement with god or supernatural beings not to interfere on its own affair thus, urge him/her not to play vital role on his life. [therefore 'spending life in denial' is a stupid remark...] Therefore an atheist just ignore god and the likes for his/her own convenience to spend his/her whole life ignoring. :D
:huh: :blink:

[vicente]

How exactly does one ignore something that doesn't exist? I would not say atheists ignore god,...I would say that christians ignore the god of their belief,...they play pick-n-choose, that is ignore the aspects of their god that they don't like, and cling to the ones they do like.

Many atheists believed in a god during their lives. Then, for most, after looking at why they did not believe in all others god's, they realized that their god was no different then others.

Know God, no Peace; Gnow Peace, no God.

Vicente
:)

[shifu]

Good Sir Sylph, I hope you follow the argument that the NAMELESS member that we have said in response to my post last September 1. Please take note that he defines in some sense what is atheism? In posting arguments so as to solve or at least arrive in an agreeable conclusion, I think one must follow the rules of logic. I think god/gods or whatever you call it is I think have had a GREAT distinction compared to a pencil. Take note : 1.) [Fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance).- The Latin means "argument to ignorance." Arguing that something is true because no one has proved it to be false, or arguing that something is false because no one has proved it to be true. Ex. a: Spirits exists since no one has as yet proved that there are not any. b: Spirits do not exist since no one has as yet proved their existence. Also called the appeal to ignorance: the lack of evidence (proof) for something is used to support its truth.] 2.) [Fallacy of argumentum ad personam (argument to personal interest).- Arguing by appealing to the personal likes (preferences, prejudices, predispositions, etc.) of others in order to have an argument accepted.] 3.) [Fallacy of accent. Sometimes classified as an ambiguity of accent. Arguing to conclusions from undue emphasis (accent, tone) upon certain words or statements. Classified as a Fallacy of ambiguity whenever this emphasis creates and ambiguity or amphiboly in the words or statements used in the argument. Ex. "The queen cannot but be praised."] 4.) [Fallacy of ambiguity. An argument that has at least one ambiguous word or statement from which a misleading or wrong conclusion is drawn.]

Sir Vincent, please take note also.

shifu-the believer

[vicente]

shifu,...Fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance), Fallacy of argumentum ad personam, Fallacy of accent

You forgot the circular fallacy,...ie.,
Muslims unquestioningly accept the Shahada, that is, that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger.
Simply ask a Muslim why they believe in the Qur'an, and they will say because the Qur'an is the infallible words of Allah written by his prophet Muhammad.
If you continue the inquiry and request how they know for certain that Muhammad is Allah’s prophet, and they will respond that they know for certain that Muhammad is Allah's prophet because it says so right in the Qur'an.

Such faith-driven circular thinking is common to all three Abrahamic Religions, and their hundreds of denominations.

In regards to your post,...your "god", as defined by the Abrahamic religions themselves, has already been proven false. So what is the point of your "fallacy's"? If anything. they only show that your own beliefs, as ALL BELIEFS, are false.

A belief is an unquestioning acceptence of something. Beliefs are never true. Of course a belief can be proved to be true, but the moment that occurs, it is no longer a belief.

be·lief n. from ME bileve, v, influenced by bileven\gelfan\leubh, to hold dear/to make palatable.
1.The mental act, condition, or habit of placing confidence in another without proof that one is right in doing so.
2.Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something not susceptable to validation.
3.Something believed or unquestioningly accepted as true in the absence of reason, especially a particular ideology accepted by a group of persons.
4.a religious tenet or tenets.

belief is always limiting
beliefs suppress, deny, disempower, disconnect
belief always keep us unfulfilled
belief begins when reason ends
belief is in something else
belief is a barrier to Love
belief is a substitute for perceived incompleteness
beliefs are negative emotional investments
belief always expects
belief implies doubt
belief is an attachment to self-imprisonment.
belief is always dishonest.

Experience born from belief, is only experienced through the condition of that belief.

Vicente
:)

[a random hack]

Pencils can talk?
Why wasn't I told?
Why have they never talked to me?
Maybe my faith isn't strong enough?
Maybe if I make sacrifices to pencils, this will demonstrate my faith and worthiness...

Hey Vicente, ask the one about why Christians go to church again... :lol:

[...]

..still don't get that joke.

On the subject of believing god; when religious beliefs are a vital part of ones selfimage, when it nourishes ego for the biggest part, then it becomes extremely important for the believer and such believer must entertain him/herself with required religious precepts without ever being able to allow for another viewpoint. This kind of idiocy can been seen all over the world, in any kind of religion...

[shifu]

You forgot the circular fallacy,...ie.,
Muslims unquestioningly accept the Shahada, that is, that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger...

Sir Vincent, I got a headache cause I still don’t know from what ground you are standing. I almost lost the belief that I have brains.
B)

[Polaris]

Vicente,

In regards to your post,...your "god", as defined by the Abrahamic religions themselves, has already been proven false.

It has? Since when? Vicente can you relay the the facts that prove there is no God or a location where I might see the proof you speak of for myself? You know me, I'm the old skeptic. I like to see undeniable proof either way for myself.

Shifu, I am assuming you are not an atheist and are a believer in some sort of God? Same question applies to you then. Can you show me undeniable proof that God does indeed exist?

My guess is that neither of you can present me with undeniable proof that God either exists or doesn't exist.. which IMO makes you both agnostic. :) :P

[rich]

Two $64,000 Questions! ;)

If one does not believe, Vicente Marco's definition of belief, does that make one a believer ? :unsure:

If one believes, Vicente Marco's definition of belief, what does that make one ? :wacko:

HINT: quote my post to see answers.

:lol: ;)

[vicente]

A 2 cent question:
I wonder if Rich ever had a direct/authentic experience?

Rich,...I do not believe, nor disbelieve, in the second edition of the Random House dictionary of the English Language,...that is to say:

belief n. from ME bileve, v, influenced by bileven\gelfan\leubh,
to hold dear/to make palatable.
1. the mental act, condition, or habit of placing confidence in another without proof that one is right in doing so.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something not susceptable to validation.
3. something believed or unquestioningly accepted as true in the absence of reason, especially a particular ideology accepted by a group of persons.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; an object of belief.

Words have no meaning, they merely point. In all instances, the word belief points to something not true. If Rich wishes to point to something that is true, than there is no reason to say "I believe" that is true. If it's true, it's true. Beliefs point to things that are untrue, although they can be proven true,...and when that happens, the belief is instantaneously no longer a belief.

A turkey once saw a human approaching a meadow and so quickly hid. The man had a small bag of corn, which he emptied in the meadow. Every other day the man would appear, and the turkey hid. After about the hundreth time, as the turkey heard the man coming, fully believing the man would simply leave the corn in the meadow, the turkey did not hide. The man approached, saw the turkey, and shot it.

belief is always limiting
beliefs suppress, deny, disempower, disconnect
belief always keep us unfulfilled
belief begins when reason ends
belief is in something else
belief is a barrier to Love
belief is a substitute for perceived incompleteness
beliefs are negative emotional investments
belief always expects
belief implies doubt
belief is an attachment to self-imprisonment.
belief is always dishonest.

Experience born from belief, is only experienced through the condition of that belief.



Vicente
:)

[vicente]

Polaris,...I said, "In regards to your post,...your "god", as defined by the Abrahamic religions themselves, has already been proven false"

So, brake it down yourself. First, write down all the definitions of God as defined by the "abrahamic religions themselves". I'm not talking of New Age notions of God like in the Pascal's Wager thread, but the definitions of God as defined through the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions.

That is great that you're a skeptic,...however, your "guess" that there is no undenialable proof in the non-existence of a God, seems to place a predisposition on your skepticism.

I understand that for most, if it wasn't on television, than its not real.

Vicente
:)

[Thomas Knierim]

Richie: Two $64,000 Questions! If one does not believe, Vicente Marco's definition of belief, does that make one a believer ?

Yes.

If one believes, Vicente Marco's definition of belief, what does that make one ?
A believer.

Please transfer the 128,000 USD to my account in the British Virgin Islands, or send a transferrable promissory note to my address. Thank you! That was easy money!

Cheers, Thomas

[rich]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Sep 4 2003, 08:40 AM
Richie: Two $64,000 Questions! If one does not believe, Vicente Marco's definition of belief, does that make one a believer ?

Yes.

If one believes, Vicente Marco's definition of belief, what does that make one ?
A believer.

Please transfer the 128,000 USD to my account in the British Virgin Islands, or send a transferrable promissory note to my address. Thank you! That was easy money!

Cheers, Thomas
Dear Thomas,

Rich usually does not submit $64,000/ Very Good Questions gratis. In this case, I submitted those $64,000 Questions, absolutely free of charge,
and did not charge thebigview, one lead nickel. :P

There must be a misunderstanding Thomas, for #1, I do not have 128K,
in my possession at this time. But I will gladly put it in my On Acc't with TJK. ;)

P.S. I supplied the correct answers which will be revealed by clicking on QUOTE in my original post. :) Can not understand why you think you are entitled to all that dough.

[shifu]

:huh: I’m getting dizzy here. Skeptic Polaris, sir, I'll answer you later (I’m so busy for now running after deadlines) and you also Sir Vincent. On my personal observation, Sir Vincent, you’re a believer. For Goodness sake, this is to inform everybody in the group:HE IS NOT AN ATHEIST :angry: …Stop bugging him as atheist. That’s my belief. :D

shifu- the believer

[Polaris]

Vicente, :)

So, brake it down yourself. First, write down all the definitions of God as defined by the "abrahamic religions themselves". I'm not talking of New Age notions of God like in the Pascal's Wager thread, but the definitions of God as defined through the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions.

Sorry but I just don't see that as undeniable proof that God doesn't exist. Yes, I admit, I suspect it is unlikely that a God which fits those descriptions would exist but I'm still not sure. All I know is that when I read written word whether it be from the scriptures or whether it be something written here, I know that I have to interpret those words myself. I also know that I make mistakes... often. I know that my interpretation of the words is based on my past experience, much of which may not have anything at all to do with the words I have just read. See, I've never seen water get turned into wine before. I've never seen a man walk on water. I have no experience in these "miracles" and the fact that I have no experiences in these mircles means that I am not in the position to either believe or disbelieve because I have nothing to base my opinion on other than what I am told. I tend to NOT believe everything I am told so the result is I live a very ambiguous "wait and see" kind of life.

God told Noah to build an ark and fill it with animals, two by two because he was going toflood the land for 40 days and 40 nights. Sounds unlikely but even today there is some speculation as to whether or not the remnants of Noah's Ark are sitting on Mount Ararat where, incidently, the Bible said it would be found. Many believe it is there, many believe it isn't. Nobody has proven it either way. Certainly, Mt. Ararat is home to some fascinating archeological mysteries which include a boat-shaped anomaly which apparently has been carbon dated to about 2000 years old. So what's that about? What's that thing on Mt. Ararat? Nobody has been able to conclusively find out exactly what it is. I suppose it could any number of things, one of which is a very large boat. But if it is a boat, how would it get up there? It's absurd to think that Noah's Ark was a real thing and it's up there on Mt. Ararat but who am I to say it isn't possible? I don't know everything.

So my interpretation of the descriptions of "god" that are written in scriptures are not necessarily accurate. Neither are your interpretations. Since you claim to be an atheist I can say with almost pinpoint accuracy, that you have never experienced a "miracle". You have never recieved a "sign" from God. Just because you have never experienced those things doesn't mean those things don't exist and haven't been experienced by others. Some people swear they have experienced those things. Is it right to call those people's liars just because you have never had an experience like that? How can you so quickly discount the experiences and opinion of others who are positive God exists? Don't they merit some measure of respect?

I understand that for most, if it wasn't on television, than its not real.

I have no idea how it is for most. I only know how it is for me.... and even then I may be wrong. I suspect that you really have no way in knowing how it is for most either. It seems you are only basing your opinion on how it is for most, on your own interpretation of your possibly inaccurate perceptions.

:)

[shifu]

[Shifu, I am assuming you are not an atheist and are a believer in some sort of God? Same question applies to you then. Can you show me undeniable proof that God does indeed exist?]

My guess is that neither of you can present me with undeniable proof that God either exists or doesn't exist.. which IMO makes you both agnostic.]

Sir/Madame Polaris-the Old Skeptic, your assumption was right. I am a believe = theist. And how does it manifest, might ask? I believe that there is a Supreme Being/God/Allah/Ultimate reality/Being so on and so forth whatever-you-like-to-call-it according your cultural and social terminology. That, one thing for sure, I know that I believe. Why? Maybe because of my history-life-process, religious and social institutions in our society, and as I grew older, my personal observation in the hierarchy of things. My faith and belief is a summation in everything that I have, I know and I experience. Now, you might say where is the undeniable proof or truth? If you are referring tangible proof Sir/Madame, I can’t prove it. But that doesn’t proved also that God does not exist. And hence cannot prove otherwise, it makes me agnostic.

According to Bertrand Russell an agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial.

Basing from this premise, I believe somehow that I do not belong to this kind of affiliation. From our existence precedes our thirst to know and knowing will lead us to the path of that Ultimate Reality or Truth.

Does this statement makes you agnostic? What is IMO by the way? My apology, coz i don't it.

[For Vincent….]
You haven’t answer the question on what ground you are standing. Anyways, please fill free the digest this thought. What is an Atheist? This question is not asked enough.
The reason it is not asked a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas about what an atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences anor sources.
Atheism is often defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no god.” Newer and more accurate dictionaries define atheism correctly as "having no belief in god(s)."
Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. Atheism may be a part of individual’s religious beliefs, but the atheism, of and by itself, is not a belief or religion. (NOTE: Religious belief does not require a god. One out of three religions is atheistic in nature. )
The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in god(s) and supernatural being(s). Some of the best debates I've ever had have been with other atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system so atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas.
Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.
http://atheismawareness.home.att.net/quest...ons/atheist.htm (http://atheismawareness.home.att.net/questions/atheist.htm)
Is this from you camp? ;)

shifu-the believer

[Polaris]

Originally posted by shifu@Sep 4 2003, 05:34 AM
:huh: I’m getting dizzy here. Skeptic Polaris, sir, I'll answer you later (I’m so busy for now running after deadlines) and you also Sir Vincent. On my personal observation, Sir Vincent, you’re a believer. For Goodness sake, this is to inform everybody in the group:HE IS NOT AN ATHEIST :angry: …Stop bugging him as atheist. That’s my belief. :D

shifu- the believer
;) Actually Shifu, I'm not a sir... but thanks for the intended honour.

Take your time responding. No rush.

And I think Vicente is NOT an atheist as well, although he believes and has said quite firmly that he is.

Polaris... the Pendulum ;)

Whoops.. hang on. I see have responded while I wrote this post. I will read you response and hopefully get back to you soon.

[Polaris]

First off, IMO means In My Opinion. :)

Shifu, I am a bit confused about whether or not you said you are agnositc or not. :huh:

In one paragraph you say, "If you are referring tangible proof Sir/Madame, I can’t prove it. But that doesn’t proved also that God does not exist. And hence cannot prove otherwise, it makes me agnostic."

In the following paragraph in which you refer to Bertrand Russell's description of an agnostic you follow by saying, "Basing from this premise, I believe somehow that I do not belong to this kind of affiliation. From our existence precedes our thirst to know and knowing will lead us to the path of that Ultimate Reality or Truth. "

It seems to me that you are waiting to find the Ultimate Reality and Truth as though you believe that this truth is available to you, however not just at this time. It sounds as though you are positive that the ultimate truth will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does exist.

Is it not possible that the ultimate truth will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does NOT exist?

:)

[vicente]

atheist n.
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
2. A godless person.
Syn: Infidel.

infidel n.
1. An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.
2. One who has no religious beliefs.
3. One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.

If we wished to get rectal about it, it could be argued that I am not an atheist. I don't disbelieve, for such suggests there is belief, nor do I deny something that isn't there. However, I am an atheist, or non-theist, in the spirit of the word.

To put it simply,...in the Abrahamic religions, God is the Creator, however, in Reality, there is no creation for which a creator could have created, except the perceived projection. To believe a god is real is to say a dream is real,...which, for most in a dream, believe the dream is real.

One morning, it is said that a student asked Siddhartha if he dreamed. The Light of the East responded, I used to dream, then I was Buddha.

Although it can be said that Buddhists are atheists,...a Buddhist would not be an infidel. ie:
http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/God-idea.htm

Vicente
:)

[Polaris]

:blink: I'm gonna get rectal, sorry. I can't help myself ;)

1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

If I want to get picky (and I do) I could say that disbelieving and denying the existence of God does not mean God does not exist. It just means you have denied it.

2. A godless person.

This does not mean God doesn't exist. It just mean this particular person doesn't have a god.... just like some couples are childless. We all know children do exist even though some couple don't have any.

As far as "infidel" is concerned, the first two points there get filed with my previous comment about disbelieving. Unbeliever, etc... same thing.
However:
3. One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.

Doubt is a yo-yo word used by agnostics such as myself who can't make up their minds firmly in either direction. The jury doubted OJ Simpson was guilty of the crime. It doesn't mean he was innocent.

At the link you provided: http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/God-idea.htm the first question is "QUESTION: Do Buddhists believe in a god?"
ANSWER: No, we do not..........

I don't have time to read the entire page although I agree with the answer. A Buddhist would NOT believe in God. However, if I am any indictation of what a Buddhist would answer, I would add to that that a Buddhist, such as myself, would not disbelieve in God either. It's that whole know/gnow thing again. If Shifu and Richie tell me God exists then I can't deny the possibility that God exists..... at least for them.

:)

[shifu]

for Polaris-the pendulum,

[In one paragraph you say, "If you are referring tangible proof Sir/Madame, I can’t prove it ….] Sorry for the confusion, Polaris. What I am trying to say is, it doesn’t mean that God does not exist (at all) just because I cannot prove its existence. And given the fact that I cannot prove god’s existence, it doesn’t mean that I am agnostic.

["Basing from this premise, I believe somehow that I do not belong to this kind of affiliation. ] I quote Bertrand Russell's description of an agnostic, to show that I am not.

[It seems to me that you are waiting to find the Ultimate
Reality and Truth as though you believe that this truth is available to you, however not just at this time] Yes, but I just would to correct the term waiting. We, as a lover and searchers of wisdom, are not here sit and drift to find that Ultimate Reality and Truth, rather we struggle to search for it, be it intellectually, emotional, physically ect. Waiting in vain is what we can observe from the crowd of humanity. However, the right attitude should be Waiting with active participation.

[It sounds as though you are positive that the ultimate truth will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does exist.] Precisely Sir! Because for me that Ultimate Reality and Truth is what I call and believed to be as God. IMO … :D thanks for the info

Worth chating with you!
shifu

[vicente]

Polaris,...if Sue and Bob, characters in your dream tonight, tell you that their God exists, yes, I agree, you very well may believe God exists for them,...that is, until you wake up.

If you are interested in what Buddhists, in general, think about God, then reading that full page would be worthwhile.
http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/God-idea.htm

Since I understand that no God exists, I can point you towards how to understand that, without any doubt whatsoever, for yourself, which so far you appear unwilling to turn and look.

Ultimately, you will understand that no God exists through understanding Light. No, not the 2nd century Christian apology 1John which says their God is light and in him is no darkness,...I'm not speaking of the light of duality, but the Light upon which duality effects its motion.

Understand Light, and you will become aware of the Source of us, within which, there is no God.

Vicente
:)

[Polaris]

Actually Vicente, I had a most disturbing dream last night than involved getting shot in the stomach, bleeding so much that my mouth went dry. I woke up with a pain in my belly and very thirsty from eating one too many homemade soft-dough pretzels before going to bed. :)

Vicente I am always interested in what Buddhists, in general think and I went on to read that page once I had more time to do so. It doesn't say anything that I would disagree with. My problem, as always, is that I don't like the word "believe". It really has no substance. You and I have had this discussion before and I think we are on fairly common ground where it is concerned. I can't "believe" in God.. I don't KNOW God. However, I can't disbelieve in God because I don't NOT know God either. Just because I don't know something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The difference between you and I is that you have the ability to say, with conviction, that you disbelieve in God. I can't do that. Shifu has the ability to say with conviction that he believes in God. I can't do that either.

Since I understand that no God exists, I can point you towards how to understand that, without any doubt whatsoever, for yourself, which so far you appear unwilling to turn and look.

I did request this of you back on page 4 of this thread. I said, "Vicente can you relay the the facts that prove there is no God or a location where I might see the proof you speak of for myself? You know me, I'm the old skeptic. I like to see undeniable proof either way for myself."

You suggested at that point to read how the various scriptures defined God and then a little while later you quoted some definitions of your own. Words prove nothing either way. Descriptions of God in the scriptures don't prove God exists. Your definitions don't prove he does not exist. I need more than words to go on here. Something tangible would be great. Nothing would please me more than to be able to say with conviction as equal as your own that "God does not exist".. or .. with equal conviction to Shifu "God does exist". I really don't care either way. God/no God. It doesn't matter to me. Just understand that if I don't believe in something there's a very good chance that I can't disbelieve in it either.

If I ever use the word "believe" in any derivative (including disbelieve) please understand that I'm using it in the context of "not knowing for sure either way."

The Buddha said: "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. "

I try very hard not to believe or disbelieve in anything. If I don't know... I simply don't know. The truth it God doesn't agree with my own reason or common sense but where the problem lies is that my own reason and common sense applies only to the things I have some knowledge about. Since I know there are a lot of things I have no knowledge about I can't very well draw as important conclusion as God's existence/non-existence on information which I perhaps don't have as yet

:)

[vicente]

Again Polaris,...it's not that I "disbelieve" in a God,...once one is aware (sapientially) of the Source of us, there simply "is no God". God is an invention within duality to make duality palatable to duality's preceptions.

For Buddhists, there is generally not much conflict with the concept of God(s),...however, in Western civilzation, there is a strong attachment to God ideas, and thus, unfortunately, an overall devoidness of any meaningful contribution to the evolution of humanity.

Buddhists may be aware that an attachment to God(s) equals an impenetrable barrier to enlightenment, but those who believe in the fabrications of the Abrahamic religions, the current Rulers of the World, believe things should governed by the laws of their God.

Take for instance Mr Hall, executed for murder the other day in Florida,...he fully believed that his God was going to substantially reward him in heaven for his atrocities. Actually, he is not much different than George 'on a mission from god' Bush, except that Bush has yet been charged for his murders.

Anyway,...I fully agree with you,...whether a God exists or not is unimportant to our own realization of who we really are. However, for many brought up in the West, there is a lingering attachment to theism. For them, whether God exists or not is important, for until they let go of their delusion, enlightenment is impossible.

The Source of us, as I said, is Light. Form is merely slowed down simulated light. When the Source of us is realized, one understands, in complete honesty, that there is no God(s). The most accurate book I've ever seen regarding Light, is 'The Secret of Light' by Walter Russell. Unfortunately, Mr Russell, a Christian, did not fully grasp the significance of his work, and, although rejecting the Abrahamic version of God, mistakened Light, the Source of us, as God.

Vicente
:)

[Polaris]

Vicente, I think for the most part we are begining to understand one another.

You know there is no god.
I don't know there is no god.

That's basically the crux of it.

It's not that I am closed mind about it, it's just that as of yet I haven't seen any tangible proof to support either side. That might be hard for you to understand and as a graduate from university in the field of biology I'm not exactly what you'd call a strong supporter of the whole Adam and Eve saga.

I respect that there are many many people in this world who will say "There is a God". These people are convinced of it. What do these people base their convictions on? I don't know. Yet they do. I have to wonder about that. Is it mass hysteria? I have no idea what would prompt billions of people to say "There is God" but it's not something I can ignore. I don't understand it. I don't even really understand the concept of God. But I can't ignore the fact that there are a billions or so people on this planet who say "There is God". I want to know why they say "there is God".

Like many others, you are convinced there is no god. I don't know what you based your convictions on either and I'm not sure you can tell me or that I would find what you find so convincing as proof to the non-existence of god, as equally convincing. It has to be more than just words.

I will go as far as to say that God seems mightly unlikely.

But does it really matter?

[rich]

Polaris posted:
I will go as far as to say that God seems mightly unlikely.

I will go as far as to say that God is very likely.

We all are surrounded by God, and by ITS works of creation.

Look at everything, there colors, symetrical designs in flowers, butterflies, exotic birds, tropical fish, the animals, the stars, planets, the cosmos.Appreciate what we see, and the capability we have to see. Last but not least, our bodies. Our mind, eyes, ears, nose, throat, our taste, and our brain.

Above all, Our Understanding.

Is this only an accident, or a coincidence, Polaris? :unsure:

I think there is a superintelligence behind the scenes, pulling the strings, and IT knows what it is doing. The only mistake IT may have made, was giving man freewill, but maybe in the overall scheme of things, it was not a mistake. Maybe time will tell. :mellow:

[vicente]

Rich,...do you understand anything about colour, the symmetrical design in nature, etc., besides your perception of it? I agree that there is something pulling the strings, but that it is part of duality itself.

Polaris,...I would not say that I "know" there is no God,...there simply is, no God. I do however, very much enjoy the dialogue through which gives me an opportunity to share what I understand.

For me, I was a believer in a God (a new age version at least) till I was 45. My realization that there is no God did not arise from any activity of proving or disproving God. It was realized through understanding Light, an enterprise I've been involved with since 1974, following an experience of being temporarily dead. Yes, I experienced Light, but it took 25 years to disrobe or surrender enough of my beliefs to grasp it.

One could say that I was very slow to recognize that which was right in front of me.

I like your question,...why do some two billion people of this Planet believe in the Abrahamic God? Why do people say there is a God?

Vicente
:)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by rich@Sep 5 2003, 07:10 PM
We all are surrounded by God, and by ITS works of creation. . . . Appreciate what we see, and the capability we have to see. Last but not least, our bodies. Our mind, eyes, ears, nose, throat, our taste, and our brain. Above all,* Our Understanding.
Hi rich - I appreciate and share the 'view' articulated above. Your mention of "eyes, ears, nose, throat, our taste, and our brain. Above all, Our Understanding." brought the following passage to mind (from The World's Wisdom: Sacred Texts of the World's Religions, by Philip Novak). It is attributed to the Kena Upanishad:

What cannot be spoken with words, but that whereby words are spoken:
Know that alone to be Brahman, the Spirit, and not what people here adore.

What cannot be thought with the mind, but that whereby the mind can think:
Know that alone to be Brahman, the Spirit, and not what people here adore.

What cannot be seen with the eye, but that whereby the eye can see:
Know that alone to be Brahman, the Spirit, and not what people here adore.

What cannot be heard with the ear, but that whereby the ear can hear:
Know that alone to be Brahman, the Spirit, and not what people here adore.

What cannot be indrawn with breath, but that whereby breath is indrawn:
Know that alone to be Brahman, the Spirit, and not what people here adore.

Vicente: Are you saying (?) that, BASED ON YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, OBSERVATION and application of LOGIC to these, you see absolutely no reason to 'believe' that the "that whereby" thang referenced has any basis in 'reality' whatsoever, that it is just a 'dream' hallucination? [When answering this, try to not let your 'belief' (or 'disbelief', as the case may be) buttons get pushed by the use of the label-names of "Brahman" and "Spirit" and any 'correspondence' these may have in your mind with the label-name "God."]

Your 'light' experience and associated 'real'izations sound fascinating, but it is not clear to me how anyone (including you) can say that your interpretations of and the conclusions you arrived at from these are any less (or, for that matter, more) 'illusory' than those of others who have also had NDE type experiences and come to both similar as well as diameterically opposed 'real'izations ('opposed' in the sense of being expressed using concepts that are 'false' in the context of your 'real'izations).

BTW (shifu: BTW=by the way), while I was looking up the quote that richie's statement reminded me of, I came across another one which reminded me of certain (label-name) "transcendental" concepts that you've mentioned:

Who Can Say How Creation Happened? That One
Though early Vedic religion was blatantly polutheistic, the notion of an underlying and all-encompassing metaphysical unity, so important in the later Upanishads, made an occasional appearance. The following creation hymn marks a level of maturity in Vedic philopsophical speculation. In a reflection on origins the author ignores personal names of gods and opts for more abstract concepts like existence and nonexistence (sat and asat). Pondering the possibility that That One (tad ekam) is the ultimate origin of things, the hymn dissolves into total Mystery as its author boldly wonders whether perhaps even That One knows not the Source.

Then even notingness was not, nor existence.
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?
Was there then a cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?

Then there was neiter death nor immortality,
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.

In the beginning desire descended on it --
that was the primal seed, born of mind.
The sages who have seacrhed their hearts with wisdom
know that which is, is kin to that which is not.

. . . But, after all, who knows, and who can say
whence it all came, and how creation happened?
The gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows when it has arisen?

Whence all creation had its origin.
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from the highest heaven,
he knows -- or maybe even he does not know.

In case you are 'tempted' ;) to 'go off' on this, before you do, please note that I said this reminded me of your 'stuff' (an vice versa) - am not thinking or suggesting they're 'identical'.

:) David

[shifu]

Vicente Bodhisattva of Dream and Illusion,

Is the noun, now Sir, applicable to you? So, what you know now is that we are an illusion or just part of your dream. Then wake up, nobody-knows-when, in reality?

shifu - confused :(

[Polaris]

Vicente:
Polaris,...I would not say that I "know" there is no God,...there simply is, no God. I do however, very much enjoy the dialogue through which gives me an opportunity to share what I understand.

In order for you to state with certainty that "there is no God" there must be something you know with which you base your strong convictions and assertions. If you don't know there is no God then insisting that there is no God as you do comes across as something akin to "talking through one's hat".

You had an unique and unusual experience while you were temporarily dead. I haven't an experience like that. I'm sure it would be 'life altering'. Strangely enough, however, I have heard other accounts of people who have had similar experiences and to some of those the death experience have left them with an even stronger affiliation with their belief in God. Some of these people return from death "knowing God". How do I attribute the fact that you return from the dead convinced there is no God while others have returned from the dead convinced there is God? Since I don't know about the existence of God either way I find myself thinking that once life has been restored, an individual must have to interpret the "death" experience. However, perhaps interpreting an experience had while dead is difficult to do while being in the realm of the living.

Is it possible that you have misinterpreted?

Now I know you will answer "no" to that question. But you answering "no" does not explain why others who have had death experiences come back knowing God exists.

I'm not going to say you are wrong for your "no God" stance, Vicente. You might very well be right. But you understand, that I if I don't know something for certain I'm not going to pretend that I do. That would be not only a deception to others but most importantly a deception to myself. Admitting that I don't know is the only way I can truly know I have an open mind about something. I'm still willing and able to learn more.

[Polaris]

Originally posted by rich@Sep 5 2003, 11:10 PM
Polaris posted:
I will go as far as to say that God seems mightly unlikely.

I will go as far as to say that God is very likely.

We all are surrounded by God, and by ITS works of creation.

Look at everything, there colors, symetrical designs in flowers, butterflies, exotic birds, tropical fish, the animals, the stars, planets, the cosmos.Appreciate what we see, and the capability we have to see. Last but not least, our bodies. Our mind, eyes, ears, nose, throat, our taste, and our brain.

Above all, Our Understanding.

Is this only an accident, or a coincidence, Polaris? :unsure:

I think there is a superintelligence behind the scenes, pulling the strings, and IT knows what it is doing. The only mistake IT may have made, was giving man freewill, but maybe in the overall scheme of things, it was not a mistake. Maybe time will tell. :mellow:
Rich, :)

You are prefectly right to say that God is very likely if that's how you truly feel. And I think you do :)

As I said earlier, I really don't understand the concept of God. I never have. I was dragged to church every Sunday as a child, during a time in life when our minds are so very open to suggestion and willing to retain information. Yet even then when my peers shuffled obediently off to Sunday School, I really just didn't understand what God was all about.

That doesn't mean that for you and for the billions of other people in this world God doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure God exists for you and that God does not exist for Vicente.
God exists for Richie.
God does not exist for Vicente.
Exists/Does not exist.
I am in doubt. I think doubt can be a good thing. If Christopher Columbus didn't doubt that the world was flat we might all still be hunkered down in Europe, afraid to sail to the horizon. Doubt and uncertainty are two important elements which make a good explorer. Let's just say that I have some things that I am exploring. I have to do this in a way that is right for me. I can recieve information from you and from Vicente but I can choose to either use that information, discard the information as useless or, if I am uncertain of its value I can file the information away for possible future use. I think we all do that. The danger is discarding something which may be preceived as useless today but may be of great value tomorrow. This is why I am so wishy washy about God. I can't discard any information about God's existence because there is just so much conflicting information out there. In fact, with all the conflicting information there is out there I don't know how anyone can be sure about God either way.... which confuses me even more. :blink:

[rich]

David and Polaris,

Glad that you understand my post, both of you replied to what was posted, by using different quotes.

I do not think, that God thinks ITS name is,God . Just a personal thought of mine.

[color=purple]

Polaris,

Rich originally posted, Polaris quoted:

I will go as far as to say that God is very likely.
I said, "is very likely", meaning extremely unlikely, 'is not'.:mellow:
Doubt that anyone living can honestly say, " I know ", unless one had a personal revelation. :o
Polaris, you are doing fine by keeping an open mind.
That is much more honest, than professing that you believe, and not believing.
I think that was how I was, when I first joined thebigview, in Jan 2001.
See how a discussion board like this, can alter one's POV? :lol: ;)
</span>

[vicente]

Yes, I had a NDE, and in that NDE was permeated in Light. At the time, I did not, not associated it with a God, or with Heaven,...I never had any doubt in God, although perhaps how to define it. I used to think that the old definitions of God must be mistaken, for God is surely better than that. My God can not be the murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist God of the Bible,...my God is a loving, caring father who sacrifices his only son for others.

Following my 1974 NDE, I had the opportunity to observe Light on dozens of other occasions through other triggers, ie., connected breathing, ego disruption, etc.,...from which, as I've mentioned, it took 25 years of honest verification to uncover an understanding of Light, which, when realized, what was also unexpectedly presented, was that there is no God.

In other words, understanding Light is the evidence that no God(s) exist.

By Light, I'm not speaking about phots, or photons,...I'm not speaking of waves or particles,...those are manifestations of simulated light, the projection from the Still, Causeless fulcrum through which duality, the Dream, effects its motion.

shifu,...this is not my Dream,...its merely "a Dream",...a Dream without a Dreamer. A Dream of separation from Light, which sustains itself in a seemingly myriad of ways, but all of which are simply beliefs.

DavidS,...of all the published definitions which I've seen referring to a God, none match Light's point of view of itself. In fact, once a clarity of Clear Light is realized, which in Buddhism is called Enlightenment, but in essence is simply the unveiling of beliefs (and disbeliefs), then, perceptions are called perceptions, spades are called spades, the Dream is called a Dream.

From one perspective, I'm a very lucky person, in that surrendering has come easier for me than most. Generally, I've not been one to "partially surrender", that is, to put conditions on my surrender, ie., "I'll surrender this much, and then God can take care of the rest". That's still clinging to a belief for ones identity,...that's not surrender.

Surrender is preferenceless,...preferencelessness is Innocense.

Vicente
:)

[Polaris]

Polaris, you are doing fine by keeping an open mind.

Thanks Rich. I'll admit it's not always easy. It means I can't ever be a know-it-all. Aww shucks!! ;)

Vicente, I've never had a NDE so obviously I have absolutely nothing to compare it to. Is it possible that what you call Light is the same as what Rich would call God? Afterall, what's in a name? ^_^

[vicente]

No Polaris,...the Light I'm pointing to has absolutely nothing in common with Rich's God. Even his Bible, in the only reference of his God being light, from the late 2nd Century apology 1John, says 'God is light and in him is no darkness', thus his God is represented as one part of duality, one part of the delusion.

You do not need to have a NDE to experience the Light,...ie., Connected Breathing can open you to it in seconds. Of course, I would not advocate anyone learning Connected Breathing on their own, but instead, do it with a Connected Breath worker at least 3-5 first. If you wish some reading material, the best I've read was 'Rebirthing Made Easy' by Colin Sisson. However, I don't recall reading a book since 1999, so there may be others now.
When you raise your vibrational level through breathing, and feel a tingling in the hands and feet, ...allow that energy to rise up in your body to your thymus gland, and you will enter the Light.

Once you see the Light that you are, you will uncover ways to return. However, no matter what the trigger, one thing they all appear to have in common is surrender. If you access Light without surrender, that is, attempt to bring your beliefs into it, in most cases, you will simply fall asleep (pass out).

That is similar to the projections of a World Wide zero EMF event, like the Hopi have described,...98% of people, the people who cling to beliefs, will pass out,...become unconscious,...from the fear of the Light,...the fear of truth.

Vicente
:)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris@Sep 6 2003, 03:03 PM
Vicente, . . . Is it possible that what you call Light is the same as what Rich would call God? Afterall, what's in a name?
Same idea-bulb 'on' in my mind, Polaris.

vicente, thank you for describing related aspects of your personal journey and how you 'got to' the 'point' where you now are. Some things are getting clearer. However, a lot remains unclear in my mind. You say: it took 25 years of honest verification to uncover In other words, understanding Light is the evidence that no God(s) exist.

(1) Could you elaborate on what you mean by honest verification with special attention to the pitfalls which attend "personal experience" being assumed to be experience of some kind of 'absolute' reality, pertinent to 'everyone'. IOW, please 'show me' how your "honest verification" process differs from the process of those who believe they have "honestly verified" the presence and activity of something they call "God".

(2) you say that the verification process led you to uncover an understanding of Light. According to richie's and my notions, the very fact that you "uncovered" (in my parlance, this would be "arrived at") an "understanding" is itself 'evidence' of what we are, or at least I am, calling "God." I fully appreciate that you think popular 'traditional' and 'new age' notions of 'God' are debunked by your present understanding. They are 'bunk' in my view as well. Instead of just repeating your assertions about other 'views' of "God", could you specifically address what I (and I think richie, as well) am 'pointing to' as "God" - for example in the Kena Upanishad quote I posted earlier?

(3) could you please fill in the 'blanks' or 'arrow'-connections in: an understanding of Light ==> when realized ==> presented ==> there is no God.
How did/does your 'understanding' of 'Light' lead to 'realizations'? and just what were/are these 'realizations'? and how do such realizations then 'present' that "there is no God."? So far, what you have said strikes me as being a bunch of 'sweeping' conclusions and related claims with no logical connections between them. (This doesn't mean that there's no logic to them, just that your statement by itself is simply an 'assertion' with no 'logical' backup, at least none communicated.) IOW, how does your personal understanding of something you call Light qualify to be considered actual evidence that something people like richie and myself think of as "God" does not exist? (you can 'skip' any reference to Bible-related analogical (or 'allegorical', or 'metaphorical') notions of "God" -- you've already set up and destroyed that paper tiger many times, and doing so one more time will just waste your and my energy - your and my 'understanding' that the allegory/metaphor is not the 'real' truth is I think quite convergent in that regard.)

I am looking forward to learning the specifics of your 'understanding' and your 'understanding process' -- IOW, I am looking forward to 'knowing', even if only vaguely, the presently quite mysterious (to me) workings of what I sometimes call "God" in 'you'. :lol:

(Please note, this doesn't mean that you or anyone else has to call the "that whereby" thang I have referenced "God." Also, please note: I only call it 'God" for purposes of communication at times; more often that not, I word-label it dfferently, again for purposes of communication.)

:) David

[rich]

Polaris,

A very short comment on this topic.

I think if one does not have the willingness or will/desire to believe/, they never will.

What do you really want to do? believe, unbelieve, or continue searching? :unsure:

The decision is yours. Note, the question was not a 2 choice question, Yes or No. It is consistent with Buddhism, to allow The Middle Way. :)

[vicente]

DavidS,...I certainly won't deny your requests,...however, as this thread has gotten rather lengthy, I'll start a new one,...The Trapper,....methods for "honest verification".

vicente
:)

[Polaris]

Rich,

I don't want to believe or unbelieve. I just want to know. I am always satified with the truth, no matter what it may be. If the only way to find the truth is to continue searching then that is what I will do. :)

[Thomas Knierim]

Polaris: I don't want to believe or unbelieve. I just want to know. I am always satified with the truth, no matter what it may be.

Ah yes, truth! Isn't that what it is all about? All beliefs, religions, philosophies, are only means to grasp truth, to get hold of it, to uncover truth, right? But can truth be grasped at all? More importantly, is there an external, objective truth? If so, truth must be outside mind, without mind, or perhaps 'mindless'. Is that possible?

Cheers, Thomas

[rich]

or maybe truth is an idea which many are searching for.

Do any find it?
My guess would be the Enlightened Ones have found it. :blink: Maybe someday it will be a reality. :D

[vicente]

Object-ive Truth? What's that? How can truth be object-ive? When you dissolve the object, object-ive truth is no longer true.

Object-ive truth is merely a relative truth,...relative only to objects. But what if objects are not true?

Thirty years ago science said that if the Earth, and everything on it were squeezed into a solid, that it be the size of a soccerball. Today, many scientists say it would be smaller than that, perhaps even nothing at all.

I say if one is interested in truth, they have to go beyond object-ivity, and its singular form, subject-ivity. To have a Many there must be a One,...to have Objects there must be a Subject.

I disagree with the question that "beliefs attempt to grasp truth",...beliefs and religions are not interested in truth, but only to sustain their untruth. To me, absolute truth is unchanging. If it changes, it is not absolute truth, merely a relative, fleeting truth.

Vicente
:)

[Thomas Knierim]

I disagree with the question that "beliefs attempt to grasp truth...

Isn't the question whether truth can be grasped at all? The more one seeks it the more it escapes one. When grasped at it vanishes! (<-- insert sardonic laughter, hehehehe)

To me, absolute truth is unchanging. If it changes, it is not absolute truth, merely a relative, fleeting truth.

Oho! " :o Absolute truth." Where can I find it? Can you show me absolute truth? <_<

Cheers, Thomas

[shifu]

Polaris, [ From Polaris… to Vicente. However, perhaps interpreting an experience had while dead is difficult to do while being in the realm of the living. ] I think this is a good point Madame Polaris. In line with this thoughts, it is what we may call sphere of knowledge or understanding. It means that, yes, we have the capacity to understand or to know yet it is still limited. My job requires me to roamed around my relatively peaceful country, which consist of 80 major tribes with 80 major dialects and 88 sub-dialects. Tough I find it very difficult to communicate, there is something that I cannot set aside, and it is what I call the universal human language: the gesture of respect, a smile and hospitality to a stranger. This manifestation I supposed is evident when our sense fails us and that understanding through the heart came into being.


Vicente,
[Yes I had a NDE, and in that NDE was permeated in Light…. My God can not be the murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist God of the Bible,...my God is a loving, caring father who sacrifices his only son for others..] I beg your respect Sir Vicente. In this forum we agreed to respect each others point of view and belief or faith in very way possible. I feel and it seems to me that you owe me an apology or explanation of some sort, good Sir. Isn’t it that right thought and speech is one of the treasured teachings of the Buddha. Had anybody here from the believer of the Abrahamic God speak ill of the against the Enlightened One? Sir, I supposed you are blinded by the truth that murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist God of the Bible, is the interpretation your European Forefathers and thus uses that Sacred book for their own interest? What do you mean by this statement? my God is a loving, caring father who sacrifices his only son for others. These sound very Christian.

[ No Polaris,...the Light I'm pointing to has absolutely nothing in common with Rich's God. Even his Bible, in the only reference of his God being light, from the late 2nd Century apology 1John, says 'God is light and in him is no darkness', thus his God is represented as one part of duality, one part of the delusion.] Sir Vicente, we Christians have concept of that Light also and for your information its not only during the apologitic era that which you mentioned above. We have from Genises from the account of Creation. One from the Gospel of St. John, pointing to Jesus-Chirst as the Logos and the Light of the world. When St. Paul was going to Damascus to kill the early Christians, he had an encounter of light which makes him blind for sometime, then later converted as Christian. Other Culture also had their own version of Light. The ancient Romans celebrated the Cult of the Emperor as the Sun-god, Sol Invictus; or the Conquering Sun or Light. The Hindu worships the Sun. Sorry I forgot the term. The Native Americans had their concept of that Light i.e. the Aztec calendar, it’s the rebirth of the fifth sun. My question is how this Light which I have mentioned defers from your NDE Light encounter?

shifu

[sahyo]

I beg your respect Sir Vicente.

which is 'paining'thinkingfeeling not respected, shifu?
....when raining, does fireing beg respect?

[sahyo]

Isn't the question whether truth can be grasped at all?
The more one seeks it the more it escapes one.

yes cannot grasp :D

When grasped at it vanishes!

hehehehe

[Ocre]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Sep 8 2003, 03:08 PM
I disagree with the question that "beliefs attempt to grasp truth...

Isn't the question whether truth can be grasped at all? The more one seeks it the more it escapes one. When grasped at it vanishes! (<-- insert sardonic laughter, hehehehe)

To me, absolute truth is unchanging. If it changes, it is not absolute truth, merely a relative, fleeting truth.

Oho! " :o* Absolute truth." Where can I find it? Can you show me absolute truth?* <_<

Cheers, Thomas
What is absolute, unchanged in all experiencing is the witnessing of it. (Awareness, the Seeing)

Truth is not an object, all appears in Unchanging Truth.
When truth is looked for, it is looked for in ‘the changing’, (untrue object/subject) the looking being that ‘changing’ as well…;-)

Just as “seeing” can’t be seen, but ‘shows itself’ through the ever changing eye and image, Awareness (the Unchanging) can’t be seen but shows itself through the ever changing perceiver/perception.

There is no one looking, (the eye) there is no ‘Truth’ to be found (the image) they form and are each other, always pointing at that which can’t be seen itself, The Seeing.

:-)

[sahyo]

What is absolute, unchanged in all experiencing is the witnessing of it. (Awareness, the Seeing)

which is thinking"witnessing of"?

Just as “seeing” can’t be seen, but ‘shows itself’ through the ever changing eye and image, Awareness (the Unchanging) can’t be seen but shows itself through the ever changing perceiver/perception.

which is thinking"shows itself"preciver/perception"?

There is no one looking, (the eye) there is no ‘Truth’ to be found (the image) they form and are each other, always pointing at that which can’t be seen itself, The Seeing.

which is thinking"they form and are each other"?

:)

[Polaris]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Sep 8 2003, 12:33 AM
Polaris: I don't want to believe or unbelieve. I just want to know. I am always satified with the truth, no matter what it may be.

Ah yes, truth! Isn't that what it is all about? All beliefs, religions, philosophies, are only means to grasp truth, to get hold of it, to uncover truth, right? But can truth be grasped at all? More importantly, is there an external, objective truth? If so, truth must be outside mind, without mind, or perhaps 'mindless'. Is that possible?

Cheers, Thomas
Lots of people have had the opportunity to answer ahead of me. :)

Ah yes, truth! Isn't that what it is all about?

I don't think so. Lots of people wallow happily through life never giving truth a second thought

All beliefs, religions, philosophies, are only means to grasp truth, to get hold of it, to uncover truth, right?

Partially. Some of these organizations are about control and fame, some are about community support. Once again, you can belong to one of these organizations or you can even design one of these organizations, and still have no regard for the truth.

But can truth be grasped at all?

No. Grasping is what prevents us from realizing the truth..

More importantly, is there an external, objective truth?

Objective. No. Absolute. Yes.

If so, truth must be outside mind, without mind, or perhaps 'mindless'. Is that possible?

I'm not sure all of what's possible. I live surrounded by barriers. ho-hum :(

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 8 2003, 06:21 PM
What is absolute, unchanged in all experiencing is the witnessing of it. (Awareness, the Seeing)

which is thinking"witnessing of"?

Just as “seeing” can’t be seen, but ‘shows itself’ through the ever changing eye and image, Awareness (the Unchanging) can’t be seen but shows itself through the ever changing perceiver/perception.

which is thinking"shows itself"preciver/perception"?

There is no one looking, (the eye) there is no ‘Truth’ to be found (the image) they form and are each other, always pointing at that which can’t be seen itself, The Seeing.

which is thinking"they form and are each other"?

:)
Which is responding to the post Asheera?
('you' continue to point out to “others” that there are no “others” :blink: …)

:-)

[sahyo]

('you' continue to point out to “others” that there are no “others” …)

(ocre thinkingwhichnot)

:)

[vicente]

shifu,...I don't understand where an apology is necessary. The Abrahamic God is a murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist God,...that's not an opinion, it is something quite clearly stated in that God's Scripture, ie.,..
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty.html

As for truth, I feel it is indeed necessary to discern between 'relative truth' and 'absolute truth'. Again,...a litmus test can be that absolute truth is unchanging,...unchanging in the deepest sense of what that points to. Absolute truth, through such a definition, can therefore only be in the Now,...not the perceived present which many believe is the Now, but the absolute Now.

The absolute Now, what Vajra calls 'Clear Light', is as a Causeless fulcrum from which the relative truths of duality effect its motion.

Thomas asks,..."where can I find it (the absolute truth)". From a conceptual point of view this seems difficult. UG Krishnamurti said "the goal, which you have invented, is responsible for your search. As long as the goal is there, so long will the search continue".

However, there are ways, for example, the 4th Way of Vajrayana, which is the Way of the Sly Man, to uncover absolute truth, but, from my understanding, is only accessed through the surrendering of beliefs, for example, as per Tilopa's Mahamudra:
http://www.dabase.net/mahamud2.htm

If one wishes to cling to their beliefs for their identity, then absolute truth will not be realized,...nor is their any possibility of enlightenment. It is not an opinion that it is impossible for a Christian-Jew-Muslem to experience Light. The conditional cannot experience the Unconditional. Belief steps between us and our direct experiences,...and as I've often said, experience born of belief can only be experienced through the condition of that belief, and thus, is not an authentic experience.

Vicente
:)

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 9 2003, 02:22 AM
('you' continue to point out to “others” that there are no “others” …)

(ocre thinkingwhichnot)

:)
which is thinking "ocre thinkingwhichnot"? ;)

:-)

[sahyo]

nope ;)

[sahyo]

Absolute truth, through such a definition, can therefore only be in the Now,...not the perceived present which many believe is the Now, but the absolute Now.


if vicente not thinkpastfuture, wouldn't write "be in the NOW"

:)

[vicente]

"if vicente not thinkpastfuture, wouldn't write "be in the NOW" ?

I could say if Asheera not thinkpastfuture, wouldn't write: "if vicente not thinkpastfuture, wouldn't write "be in the NOW"

Asheera appears not to gnow the above, but merely knows the above. In essence she is saying that Buddha never realized enlightenment because he spoke of enlightenment.

Vicente
:)

[sahyo]

I could say if Asheera not thinkpastfuture, wouldn't write:
"if vicente not thinkpastfuture, wouldn't write "be in the NOW"

:) no

didn't say:
Buddha never realized enlightenment because he spoke of enlightenment.

said:
if vicente not thinkpastfuture, wouldn't write "be in the NOW"

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 9 2003, 03:05 AM
nope ;)
Asheera, …Dit is als de spelgesprekken die mijn twee oudsten soms houden: “Gisteren?- Nee, soms geel.- Vijfentwintig dan?- Nou, dat was zijn schuld niet. – Goed, doe ik zaterdag wel…”

Confused? This is what it says in Dutch:

Asheera, …This is like the talk-games my two eldest children sometimes have: "Yesterday?-No, yellow- How about twenty-five?- Well, that wasn’t his fault.- ‘Kay, I’ll do it Saturday "

They can go on like that for a long time …
I translated the Dutch for you, I understand you can’t translate your use of words into something that isn’t double Dutch to me…so be it.

:-)

[Thomas Knierim]

Ocre: What is absolute, unchanged in all experiencing is the witnessing of it.

Very eloquently put, Ocre, yet I hesitate to agree because it seems to me that also witnessing and experiencing is conditioned.

Vicente: UG Krishnamurti said "the goal, which you have invented, is responsible for your search. As long as the goal is there, so long will the search continue".

UG is a smart man. I read his book some time ago. Unfortunately he claims to be enlightened, which makes him that what he derides; he is the man whom he is mocking. Such irony!

But, I agree with the point you made about surrender. A belief can become an attachment, hence, it must be surrendered. ..but only if it is the belief that has become the problem...

Polaris: Objective. No. Absolute. Yes.

Considering that the nature of absolute truth has not been ascertained it is interesting that you confirm its existence without hesitation. What may be the reason?

Cheers, Thomas

[Thomas Knierim]

Ocre: I understand you can’t translate your use of words into something that isn’t double Dutch to me…

Double Dutch?

As opposed to single Dutch? Lovely! :lol:

Cheers, Thomas

[Ocre]

…because it seems to me that also witnessing and experiencing is conditioned.

The interpretation is always conditioned, when witnessing/experiencing is believed to point at truth versus untruth.

Witnessing has no owner, but since this can’t be seen by ‘anyone’ and since ‘searching’ believes in object/subject, Unchanging Truth will continue to elude the searcher…

:-)

[Ocre]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Sep 9 2003, 09:59 AM
Ocre: I understand you can’t translate your use of words into something that isn’t double Dutch to me…

Double Dutch?

As opposed to single Dutch? Lovely! :lol:

Cheers, Thomas
....It got a chuckle out of me as well…. :D

[Polaris]

Thomas: Polaris: Objective. No. Absolute. Yes.

Considering that the nature of absolute truth has not been ascertained it is interesting that you confirm its existence without hesitation. What may be the reason?

Well, first of all, I'm not convinced that if we experienced the Absolute, we would be able to discuss the "nature" of it here, in the relative. Is it possible to discuss something the the relative without that object itself becoming relative. The absolute becomes objective as soon as you discuss it, or even think about it. Every thought we have is objective in the relative. Once we discuss the absolute it becomes objective and once it becomes objective it should, technically cease to be the Absolute.

That's what I meant in my earlier remark to Vicente in this thread (page 6) "...perhaps interpreting an experience had while dead is difficult to do while being in the realm of the living. "
I wonder if some things just can't be translated. ie: I cannot describe a rainbow to a blind man. If I have ever experienced the absolute, I don't think I could describe it.

[sahyo]

to point at truth versus untruth.

"point at" ?
"verses"?

[rich]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 9 2003, 08:41 PM
to point at truth versus untruth.

"point at" ?
"verses"?
Comment:

Oh, for crying out loud! Nitpick and nitpick. :angry:

[Thomas Knierim]

Polaris: Well, first of all, I'm not convinced that if we experienced the Absolute, we would be able to discuss the "nature" of it here, in the relative.

It rather seems to me that the nature of "the absolute" is discussible, but not capable of being experienced, because "the absolute" is an abstract mental construct, such as a n-dimensional vector space, except that the latter has a precise meaning, whereas "the absolute" is a nebulous variable to which different people assign different spiritual experiences.

Cheers, Thomas

[Ocre]

And still Thomas, what is absolute in this as well, is the witnessing of it. Even the witnessing of calling it a mental concept… There are no qualities to this witnessing.

The interpretation is always conditioned, when witnessing/experiencing is believed to point at truth versus untruth.

Witnessing has no owner, but since this can’t be seen by ‘anyone’ and since ‘searching’ believes in object/subject, Unchanging Truth will continue to elude the searcher…

:-)

[sahyo]

And still Thomas, what is absolute in this as well, is the witnessing of it. Even the witnessing of calling it a mental concept… There are no qualities to this witnessing.



The interpretation is always conditioned, when witnessing/experiencing is believed to point at truth versus untruth.


"There are no qualities to this witnessing."...."no qualities" "versus" 'qualities'?


Witnessing has no owner


"There are no qualities to this witnessing."...."this witnessing"?

[Polaris]

Thomas: "It rather seems to me that the nature of "the absolute" is discussible, but not capable of being experienced, because "the absolute" is an abstract mental construct, such as a n-dimensional vector space, except that the latter has a precise meaning, whereas "the absolute" is a nebulous variable to which different people assign different spiritual experiences."

Hmmm :huh:

It seems to me that we could only discuss the absolute in a speculative manner, then, if it can't be experienced.

Do you think that the absolute is an abstract mental construct? I would have thought it more the absence of any mental constructs. The discussion of the absolute might be an abstract mental construct since, yes, we all assign it different spiritual qualities but wouldn't the absolute itself be the absence of such things.
:unsure:

[rich]

@ this point of time, in the discussion of What Is An Aetheist? , it appears that the Forum, is now attempting to define the word,absolute.

Absolute, is a tricky word. By tricky, I mean, it is, and it isn't. i.e.:

Absolute zero= -473 deg.F,= 0 deg. Kelvin scale.
An absolute fact.

The absolute truth is nearly impossible, since what is true for everybody, does not exist. How does one interpret happenings, does POV's become a part of the equation?

As ocre said, how it is interpreted is a variable which one has to reckon with. B) :mellow:

[Polaris]

Oh.... Absolut!!? It's vodka. ;)

Drink enough you lose consciousness.. then you lose your spouse, family, job and house. You find yourself without possessions and without attachments and alone and empty.

Hmmm, maybe that's a different Absolute ;)

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 10 2003, 04:06 PM

And still Thomas, what is absolute in this as well, is the witnessing of it. Even the witnessing of calling it a mental concept… There are no qualities to this witnessing.



The interpretation is always conditioned, when witnessing/experiencing is believed to point at truth versus untruth.


"There are no qualities to this witnessing."...."no qualities" "versus" 'qualities'?


Witnessing has no owner


"There are no qualities to this witnessing."...."this witnessing"?
Asheera,

There is no need to adapt language as if it could be less objectifying by not saying I and you or this and that…

All is whole, it doesn’t matter in the least how it might appear not to be so.

:-)

[sahyo]

There is no need to adapt language as if it could be less objectifying by not saying I and you or this and that…

not writing "adapt" like ocre thinkingassumingconcluding

ocre read which posted or just interested commenting writing?

[rich]

ocre posted:
QUOTE (asheera @ Sep 10 2003, 04:06 PM)
QUOTE

And still Thomas, what is absolute in this as well, is the witnessing of it. Even the witnessing of calling it a mental concept… There are no qualities to this witnessing.



QUOTE

The interpretation is always conditioned, when witnessing/experiencing is believed to point at truth versus untruth.



"There are no qualities to this witnessing."...."no qualities" "versus" 'qualities'?

QUOTE

Witnessing has no owner



"There are no qualities to this witnessing."...."this witnessing"?

Asheera,

There is no need to adapt language as if it could be less objectifying by not saying I and you or this and that…

All is whole, it doesn’t matter in the least how it might appear not to be so.

:-)


I think what asheera meant to say is:


There is no quality to this witnessing.

[sahyo]

no

[Ocre]

I think what asheera meant to say is:


There is no quality to this witnessing.

:D

[rich]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 11 2003, 02:24 AM
no
asheera's answer to rich's post:
no

>>>>>>> -_- <<<<<<<

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris@Sep 10 2003, 11:18 AM
Oh.... Absolut!!?* It's vodka.* ;)

Drink enough you lose consciousness.. then you lose your spouse, family, job and house.* You find yourself without possessions and without attachments and alone and empty.

Hmmm, maybe that's a different Absolute ;)
Double :lol:, Polaris !

Looks to me like you may have put your finger on 'similarities' between 'different' elements in the set of all humanly-conceived (therefore 'in'·'vent'·ed?) Absolutes!

I've thoroughly enjoyed the 'intelligence' (God?) involved in the conversation here, but, since my personal criterion for the 'value' of any thang or non-thang is "What is its actual 'functionality' or 'use'?" (as in a/any tool's functionality or use), I can't really get excited (or is it incited?) about the the possible 'fine' points of the notion. As I write this, it occurs to me that 'fun' may be the high point of the notion's 'functionality', if folks don't get 'serious' about it, that is!

IMO, 'seriously' trying to pin this tail on the donkey in consensual terms can/will only lead to a kind of "My Absolute is more absolute than your Absolute" blind man's buff -- another variation on the "My God (or non-God, as the case may be) is more 'real' than your God (or non-God)" theme.

I'm with richie in terms of accepting and embracing the 'reality' that all perception and experience of 'truth' IS, by virtue of the very 'nature' of existential dynamics, subjective.

THAT's a very useful/functional and therefore 'valuable' notion, IMO. If nothing else, it totally finesses the donkey's-ass game-snafu.

To anyone who things there's an 'other' reality than "what is" (as 'postulated' above), I can only say that, IMO, ONLY such "ISness" IS! IOW, there 'really' ain't anythang 'else'!! To think-n-feel or perceive-n-experience so is purely 'imaginary', though such 'imagined' reality exists as such suchness :lol:

[Polaris]

David, you should wander over to the Absolut Vodka web page http://absolut.com/
Quite an interesting page considering it's a booze page. I was there yesterday and thought it was pretty well done.

What did one Buddha say to the other Buddha?

"My Absolute is more absolute than your Absolute"

Ain't ever gonna happen. :)



I think you can't discuss the Absolute in the relative without losing the Absolute. You may experiencing the absolute but back in the relative you wont be able to discuss your experience. It is ineffable. Which is why the 'functionality' of this discussion always reverts (to me at least) to something 'fun'. It's pointless to discuss it and, to be quite frank, I think as long as we're hung up on what reality is, what the truth is, what the nature of things is, what the Absolute is... we will never realize it.

[rich]

;) absolutely and polaritively rotflol :lol:

[Thomas Knierim]

Polaris: Do you think that the absolute is an abstract mental construct?

Well, yes. It is a word that has no phenomenal correlate, a pure abstraction, and therefore a mental construct.

Polaris: I would have thought it more the absence of any mental constructs.

Then you are interpreting and projecting/enhancing/adding meaning to what is otherwise a placeholder.

The discussion of the absolute might be an abstract mental construct since, yes, we all assign it different spiritual qualities but wouldn't the absolute itself be the absence of such things.

Is it possible for mental constructs to be absent from mind?

Cheers, Thomas

P.S.: Thanks for the Vodka link. I think it's one of the best multimedia sites I have ever seen. B)

[a random hack]

<briefly wonders what the world would be like with no "absolute">
<shrug>

As I write this, it occurs to me that 'fun' may be the high point of the notion's 'functionality', if folks don't get 'serious' about it, that is!

Yup, putting the 'fun' back into 'function' :lol:

Seems to me, "absolute" is part of the "absolute", thus "relative" and not "absolute"....
So where does that leave "relative"?

[Polaris]

Polaris: Do you think that the absolute is an abstract mental construct?

Thomas: Well, yes. It is a word that has no phenomenal correlate, a pure abstraction, and therefore a mental construct.

Polaris: I would have thought it more the absence of any mental constructs.

Thomas: Then you are interpreting and projecting/enhancing/adding meaning to what is otherwise a placeholder.

:huh: See, this is why the Absolute is impossible to talk about. Everytime we do we project/enhance and add meaning to a pure abstraction (see... i just did it again) <_<

Polaris: The discussion of the absolute might be an abstract mental construct since, yes, we all assign it different spiritual qualities but wouldn't the absolute itself be the absence of such things.

Thomas: Is it possible for mental constructs to be absent from mind?

er.... yes? Maybe? :unsure: In a state of satori??

Thomas: P.S.: Thanks for the Vodka link. I think it's one of the best multimedia sites I have ever seen.

You're welcome. I was impressed by it too. :)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris@Sep 12 2003, 05:30 AM
Thomas: Is it possible for mental constructs to be absent from mind?

Polaris: er.... yes? Maybe? :unsure: In a state of satori??
Let's say that's the case, Polaris (not that you are 'advocating' such-defined 'satori'-state as anything more than a 'temporary' state of vacate·ioning being; but some advocate it as a kind of 'eternal' spiritual-soma induced bliss-haven).

In contemplating such a 'condition' as a 'permanent' possibility, it strikes me that that would mean as living (Taliban-like?) in a 'state' where there's no personally expressive and inter·personal·course·ly comm·uni·cational activities like 'music' or 'poetry' or 'art' (or posting words in forums!) of any kind, since these are all 'mental' 'constructs' of sorts aren't they? Not a 'state' I'd personally (or assuming such was possible, 'impersonally') like to hang in for very long, or so it seems to me.

So forgetting whether it is 'possible' "for mental contructs to be absent from mind" or not, I wonder how 'desirable' the actualization of a state might be - beyond being a 'vacate·ion' 'spot' which is 'accessible' to being 'visited' when and as personally desired or 'needed' in the context of one's ongoing mental-construct-thinking-and-emotion-feeling life, that is.

David

[Polaris]

Originally posted by DavidS+Sep 12 2003, 06:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DavidS @ Sep 12 2003, 06:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Polaris@Sep 12 2003, 05:30 AM
Thomas: Is it possible for mental constructs to be absent from mind?

Polaris: er.... yes? Maybe? :unsure: In a state of satori??
Let's say that's the case, Polaris (not that you are 'advocating' such-defined 'satori'-state as anything more than a 'temporary' state of vacate·ioning being; but some advocate it as a kind of 'eternal' spiritual-soma induced bliss-haven).

In contemplating such a 'condition' as a 'permanent' possibility, it strikes me that that would mean as living (Taliban-like?) in a 'state' where there's no personally expressive and inter·personal·course·ly comm·uni·cational activities like 'music' or 'poetry' or 'art' (or posting words in forums!) of any kind, since these are all 'mental' 'constructs' of sorts aren't they? Not a 'state' I'd personally (or assuming such was possible, 'impersonally') like to hang in for very long, or so it seems to me.

So forgetting whether it is 'possible' "for mental contructs to be absent from mind" or not, I wonder how 'desirable' the actualization of a state might be - beyond being a 'vacate·ion' 'spot' which is 'accessible' to being 'visited' when and as personally desired or 'needed' in the context of one's ongoing mental-construct-thinking-and-emotion-feeling life, that is.

David [/b][/quote]
David,

Yes, I would not advocate that a satori-state would last any longer than a fleeting moment and that it would not be a bliss-haven. I think any blissfulness or euphoria which may be associated with a satori-state would occur only after one's return to a relative consciousness at which point one might say "Eureka!!!" but that while experiencing satori one would probably only be experiencing a momentary clarity which would be beyond desire and emotion. Seems very likely that emotion and desire to experience it again might follow satori but not occur duing satori.

Therefore, I would say that if you experienced satori I doubt you'd care about music or poetry etc.. You would be neither happy nor sad. You would just 'be'. And if you 'desire' these things chances are you hinder your chances of experiencing any sort of enlightenment, even one as fleeting and momentary as a satori.

Desire is a big old albatross around your neck, David.

[sahyo]

Therefore, I would say that if you experienced satori
I doubt you'd care about music or poetry etc..
You would be neither happy nor sad.

which thinks musicing-poeting happysad, polaris?....
is sunningmooningachooingpoopooing happysad?

[Polaris]

asheera: which thinks musicing-poeting happysad, polaris?....
is sunningmooningachooingpoopooing happysad?

David was thinking musicing-poeting and how 'desirable' the actualization of a state (sic. satori) might be.
Polaris WAS admittedly *thinking* that musicing-poeting happysad not relevant.

However, relatively speaking, since you brought it up ;) sunningmooningachooingpoopooing can be either happy or sad.
Sunning-happy = after a long cold Canadian winter sunning feels good
Sunning-sad = blistering sunburn
Mooning-happy = taking a walk under the light of the full moon
Mooning-sad = seeing a plumbers crack has he crouches under my kitchen sink
Achooing-happy = few things feel as good as a long awaited sneeze
Achooing-sad = resulting in a handful of snot when you have no tissue or hanky
poopooing-happy = ahhhh.. the joy of regularity
poopooing-sad = Montezuma's Revenge
;)

[sahyo]

sunningmooningachooingpoopooing can be either happy or sad.
Sunning-happy = after a long cold Canadian winter sunning feels good
Sunning-sad = blistering sunburn
Mooning-happy = taking a walk under the light of the full moon
Mooning-sad = seeing a plumbers crack has he crouches under my kitchen sink
Achooing-happy = few things feel as good as a long awaited sneeze
Achooing-sad = resulting in a handful of snot when you have no tissue or hanky
poopooing-happy = ahhhh.. the joy of regularity
poopooing-sad = Montezuma's Revenge
;)

is coldsunning
sunburning
moonwalking
plumbercracking
sneezing
handsnoting
poopooingregularly
montezumaing
happysad?
;)

[Polaris]

is coldsunning
sunburning
moonwalking
plumbercracking
sneezing
handsnoting
poopooingregularly
montezumaing
happysad?
;)

coldsunning
sunburning
moonwalking
plumbercracking
sneezing
handsnoting
poopooingregularly
montezumaing
is
:)

[rich]

<*>Self Discourse<*>

celestial fire inquisiting: Is it too much to ask, just to be a regular guy?

rich : "Nah, I don't think so"

celestial fire inquisiting: :wub: :P :D

[rich]

asheera posted about mooning:Mooning-sad = seeing a plumbers crack has he crouches under my kitchen sink


:o really cracks me up. :D :lol: ;) :P

hahaha hash eera teeheehahaaaaaaah ha.

[sahyo]

which thinks'emotioning'happysad polaris :)

[Polaris]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 13 2003, 06:24 PM
which thinks'emotioning'happysad polaris :)
which thinks'emotioning'happysad polaris :)

polaris confused which thinks'emotioning'happysad asheera :huh: ??

Maybe polaris too much sunning-happy nice September day, sunburned-sad brains. :blink: ;)

[sahyo]

;)

hehehe

which thinkingsunning-happy-sunburned-sad brain?
....are saying can't think
though still thinking happysad?

;)

[rich]

Here is another post, which you can file in your So What! folder,
if you wish to save the post. Otherwise, just delete it, ignore it, ignore me, as you usually do. In fact, put me on your ignore list if you haven't already.

You now may continue with your daviding. :P :D ;)

Thinking it is better not to say, "anything" over saying nothing at all. :ph34r:

[sahyo]

which is thinkingsomethingnothinganything, rich? ;)

[rich]

which is thinking, e-motion-inghappy or sad, asheera? ;) and polaris? ;)

[sahyo]

which is thinkinge-motion-ing:

Here is another post, which you can file in your So What! folder,
if you wish to save the post. Otherwise, just delete it, ignore it, ignore me, as you usually do. In fact, put me on your ignore list if you haven't already.?

and thinking:

which is thinking, e-motion-inghappy or sad, asheera??

;)

[Polaris]

hehehe

which thinkingsunning-happy-sunburned-sad brain?
....are saying can't think
though still thinking happysad?

No, was saying confusedthinking "which thinks'emotioning'happysad polaris"
Not sure asheera, if you are asking if I think things are happy or sad. I understand things are not happy/sad.. just are.

Is that what you were asking? :unsure: :huh:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris@Sep 13 2003, 05:37 AM
Therefore, I would say that if you experienced satori I doubt you'd care about music or poetry etc.. You would be neither happy nor sad. You would just 'be'. And if you 'desire' these things chances are you hinder your chances of experiencing any sort of enlightenment, even one as fleeting and momentary as a satori.
Hi Polaris -

Sounds like we are in agreement about the 'nature' of the satori 'state'. I appreciate the chance to meaningfully explore/clarify differences in our perception pertaining to matters related to it.

I think you're 'right' that 'desire' biases the locus of one's attention (or, at the very least, 'narrows' it's 'focus'), thus 'hindering' the possibility of any kind of 'full' enlightenment ex·peer·ience, as long as the 'desire' is 'active'. I personally am therefore a strong advocate of 'dispassionate' meditation and contemplation, and endorse 'whatever works' in terms of a letting-go-meta-method for a person to immerse himself or herself in such a psychospiritually 'free' condtion.

Desire is a big old albatross around your neck, David.
Methinks you misperceive or, if you perceive accurately, mischaracterize the 'place' I think 'desire' has in any and all forms of life. Let me see, how can I communicate my perspective in this regard?

Just as both 'waking' and 'sleeping', as well as 'resting', states are integral aspects of physical-body life, I think things like being 'still' and 'silent-empty' and being 'active' and 'fullness-overflowing-expressive' and 'integrated combinations' of such 'states' of being are all integral to 'healthy' psychospiritual life.

Given that as context, maybe you can 'see' that (from my point of view, at least) 'desire' ain't no albatross around my next. you might even say that it is the very thang that enables me to 'live' fully. Of course, what I next say wouldn't apply to anyone who only desires satori-state-and-assocated experiences, but what I was trying to express was that such a state, if and as 'resided' in for prolonged periods, eventually becomes 'boring' and results in 'listlessness' in critters, such as myself, for whom yang-expression is as import·ant (meaning 'significant' in terms of creative-value) and life-joy deploying-n-'releasing' as being yin-receptive to what simply flows into one, in satori-states or otherwise.

To each his/her own, in this regard, I suppose. I just want to make it clear that in my view, it's one thing to not 'care' about things like "music or poetry etc." and be "neither happy nor sad" and just "'be'" (as you put it) for periods of time and quite another to do so, or aim to do so, or pretend to do so, or advocate doing so, as a 'permanent' life-style.

I strongly suspect (to the point of 'believing' it a likely outcome) that a person's embracing the latter option 'rigorously' will eventually lead to an 'imbalance' ( just of a different variety than those who are completely desire-driven), which will eventually manifest in 'unhealthiness' of one sort or another - just as would be the case if a person either stayed only 'awake' or 'asleep', physically speaking (not that anyone could actually do either by 'natural' means, but, with the 'help of 'hypnogogic' methods (chemicals?), it's a hypothetical possibility).

Without 'desire' there would be no Shiva-Shakti 'song-n-dance'. Don't you just sway when you hear/feel life's 'beat'? Albatross? not hardly. For me at least, a steady 'diet' of 'desirelessness' would be a millstone around my neck -- I gnow that my spirit would 'sink' in such case -- actually, what I really gnow is that my spirit seems to 'naturally' 'rebel' when and if it starts sinking and, after it then 'surfaces', then flies-the-light-fantastic in the world of thought, feeling and action.

And then, of course, it resubmerges and immerses itself in 'desireless' meditation and contemplation -- I'd say this 'occupies' most of my daily life.

And then something else 'calls' me to sing and dance about it.

Wheee! - David :D

[sahyo]

can david say musicingpoeting which no thinkerthinking isn't meditation?

[sahyo]

No, was saying confusedthinking "which thinks'emotioning'happysad polaris"
Not sure asheera, if you are asking if I think things are happy or sad. I understand things are not happy/sad.. just are.

Is that what you were asking?

no :)

which is thinking 'asif'


sunningmooningachooingpoopooing can be either happy or sad.
Sunning-happy = after a long cold Canadian winter sunning feels good
Sunning-sad = blistering sunburn
Mooning-happy = taking a walk under the light of the full moon
Mooning-sad = seeing a plumbers crack has he crouches under my kitchen sink
Achooing-happy = few things feel as good as a long awaited sneeze
Achooing-sad = resulting in a handful of snot when you have no tissue or hanky
poopooing-happy = ahhhh.. the joy of regularity
poopooing-sad = Montezuma's Revenge


?

[sahyo]

I understand things are not happy/sad

which is thinking"things"?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 14 2003, 12:37 PM
can david say musicingpoeting which no thinkerthinking isn't meditation?
David can and does say that "musicingpoeting which no thinkerthinking" isn't 'empty' meditation. It is an ex·press·ion of the 'fullness' of somethang or other, in the case of the source of the above words, a thang 'which' regards what's going on as having "no thinkerthinking" associated with it. :)

[sahyo]

For me at least, a steady 'diet' of 'desirelessness' would be a millstone around my neck --

perhaps looking which is clinging thinking'desire'

I gnow that my spirit would 'sink' in such case -- actually, what I really gnow is that my spirit seems to 'naturally' 'rebel' when and if it starts sinking and, after it then 'surfaces', then flies-the-light-fantastic in the world of thought, feeling and action.

which is thinking"sinking"surfacing" asif 'asomewhere' to sinkto and surfacefrom?

which 'fears' not thinkingdesiring?

And then something else 'calls' me to sing and dance about it.

"something else"?...."about"?

[sahyo]

David can and does say that "musicingpoeting which no thinkerthinking" isn't 'empty' meditation. It is an ex·press·ion of the 'fullness' of somethang or other, in the case of the source of the above words, a thang 'which' regards what's going on as having "no thinkerthinking" associated with it.

which is thinking
"empty"fullness"?
"something or other"?
"a thang"?

[Ronagon]

I think an athiest is someone who can't stand the God of the Bible, bored and conceited brat that he is...

but I also think that an athiest is someone who does believe in a higher power, one that imparts balance to the universe.

In my estimation, all athiests create their own God, one that they can actually respect.

I think athiests would be more aptly called something like "discriminating worshippers".

[rich]

The Devil is not An Aetheist, for he/she/it, believes and knows God. :ph34r:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 14 2003, 01:20 PM
which is thinking
"empty"fullness"?
"something or other"?
"a thang"?
Polly wanna cracker?

Or is the game you are playing 'Peek-a-Boo"? In which case, "Peek-a-Boo" backatcha!

I don't get you at all, asheera. (Note: this is just meant as 'feedback', please don't take this as an 'invitation' indicating any 'desire' on my part to hear you repeat words that have been said and attach quesion marks to them.)

:blink: David

[rich]

;) On 9/14/03, asheera posted:
</span>

a:[color=gray]which is thinkinge-motion-ing:

R:Here is another post, which you can file in your So What! folder,
if you wish to save the post. Otherwise, just delete it, ignore it, ignore me, as you usually do. In fact, put me on your ignore list if you haven't already.?

a:and thinking:

R:which is thinking, e-motion-inghappy or sad, asheera??


thinking, always thinking.

I THINK. ;) :D :lol:

Please do not put me on your ignore list. :unsure:

[a random hack]

regarding 'satori', was thinking that 'satori' is a 'state' different from my 'normal' 'state', but then realised I don't know what 'normal' 'state' is... :unsure: :D :lol:

[sahyo]

I don't get you at all, asheera.



:blink: David


;) :)

[sahyo]

Please do not put me on your ignore list. :unsure:



ignore list?, rich :)

[rich]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 17 2003, 03:44 PM

Please do not put me on your ignore list. :unsure:



ignore list?, rich :)
:angry: Ignore and Reply,
Such lists, have not-(I).
Just send and reply,
when you do,
send and reply,
and I do too.

The Evil Inquisitor :
What does this have to do with Atheism?
Me:
Nothing!

The Evil Inquisitor :
What does that prove?
Me:
Freedom of the press! :lol:

The Evil Inquisitor : :angry:

[rich]

hushsshhhhhhhhhhhquietsssshushhhhhhusilencehhush :huh: ?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 17 2003, 01:39 AM

I don't get you at all, asheera.



:blink: David


;) :)
News flash - that part of my post wasn't a 'joke'.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Sep 16 2003, 06:48 PM
regarding 'satori', was thinking that 'satori' is a 'state' different from my 'normal' 'state', but then realised I don't know what 'normal' 'state' is... :unsure: :D :lol:
:lol: !

[sahyo]

did responing " ;) :) " say was or wasn't a joke, david" :)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 18 2003, 04:07 PM
did responding " ;) :) " say was or wasn't a joke, david" :)
It 'said' (to me) that you took my telling you I didn't 'get' you at all to be a smiley-laughing 'matter'. All that 'which' was trying to 'clarify' by the "it wasn't a 'joke'" comment was that the 'matter' wasn't so in David's eyes. :(

[sahyo]

It 'said' (to me) that you took my telling you I didn't 'get' you at all to be a smiley-laughing 'matter'. All that 'which' was trying to 'clarify' by the "it wasn't a 'joke'" comment was that the 'matter' wasn't so in David's eyes.

no, agapimenos'sweeting'....was only " ;) :) "

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 19 2003, 01:26 PM
no, agapimenos'sweeting'....was only " ;) :) "
Like I said, active love, 'agape'-kind and/or otherwise, 'necessitates' transmitting and receiving. The feedback I gave you was to let you know some 'context' pertaining to how your 'signals' were being 'received' and why which I thought you might otherwise be unaware of.

[thirst4sun]

I beleive there is a higher energy above us.....but is this higher energy a God??????? Not sure??? :unsure:

[a random hack]

thirst,
does this energy flow downhill?
does lower energy flow uphill?

[sonrisa]

energy is enery- til it turns into mass, that is. energy into mass, mass into energy, & so on & so forth.... B)

[sahyo]

"turns into"? ;)

[vicente]

"energy is energy- til it turns into mass" LOL

Energy is mass. Neither is real. Merely projections.

Energy arises from the perception of separation. There is no energy within the Still, Unconditionality of the Now.

Energy manifests as two pairs of 90 degree arch-angles with the sole desire to return to Source, which, it never can. One cannot bring a condition into the Unconditional and expect the Unconditional to remain Unconditional.

"agape love" LOL

Most Christians believe the god they invoke while spreading their faith, is Love. However, in the whole of their Holy Book, the Bible, it only suggests the idea that this god is love at the very end, in the late 2nd Century apology 1John. However, when viewing the full length and breadth of their Bible, their Patriarch is clearly a murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist, conditional god. Fundamentally, Christian love, like the love of their God, what they often call agape, is merely a conditional love.

To better understand this type of love, simply consider the Great Love Chapter of Christendom, Corinthians 13; ie., "love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things", 1 Cor 13:7. Although this form of love, that is, bearing, believing, hoping and enduring is more compassionate then passionate, more commitment orientated then fleeting, it isn't Unconditional Love, but the devotion, attachment and expectation to the conditions of their beliefs. Thus, no matter how one perceives it, experience born of belief can only be experienced through the condition of that belief. A self-perpetuating delusion.

Passionate or emotional love, is another type of conditional love. This is the love of solicitudal desire and enthralled obsession. Such love is usually, but not necessarily, accompanied by biological, chemical or instinctual love, which manifests a yearning for the welfare, possession and companionship of another. Ordinarily, emotional love is based on something received through physiological or pyschological arousal, and commonly includes, as in Christian love, an attached expectation.

The highest love a human can awaken to, is the amoral intimacy of Conscious Love. This is the Love of the Bodhisattva; the wish for the well being and liberation of all; without predisposition, and indifferent towards the consequences to the lover.

A wish, in this context, is not synonymous with hope or desire. Hope and desire belong to an anticipation and expectation of the future. Hope and desire ensues from the thought of lack; that things should be other than they are. A wish on the other hand, is an intention, unencumbered by predisposition; to allow Love to flow, and arrive at its own harmonium.

Individuality is incessantly convinced of its separateness; it bears, believes, hopes, and endures within a perceived encapcilated form, manifesting conditions that perpetually repeat themselves. A wish arises from the Heart of ones Essence. It realizes that Love cannot be sent or given, not even to oneself; for Love already is complete, whole and without lack. There is no absence of Love, anywhere, only an enshrouding by the beliefs that have been built against it. But who would be against Love? Only beliefs are against love, even when they think they are for it. For if a belief saw Love, that belief would instantly dissolve.

Love cannot be sent or given. Such an agenda, on any level, implies that the Sender/Giver thinks Love is lacking. There is no deficiency or absense of Love anywhere. Love is the Unconditional fulcrum from which Duality effects its motion.

The fragrance of love is as a tremendum uncovered by surrendering expectation, and through that immediacy, be witness to a grand preferenceless reality. A reality of Love's own flow; unveiled of what belief and predisposition think it should be.

Belief implies doubt. To trust in a monotheistic god, or any belief, is committing ones reliance, dependence, certitude, allegiance and potential transcendence to something that is false. Failure to recognize the false as false, or a belief as that which suppresses, denies, disempowers and disconnects, is the ruination of destiny's and self-sabotage of the full expression of ones inherent gifts.

If we are to trust, let our trust be with something we can never leave and that can never leave us. Let our trust be in love. To trust in the myth of a deity is not just misplaced love, it is insanity. Simply consider the hundreds of conditions that the Judeao-Christian-Muslem gods put on their faithful. For example, what if ones greatgrandfather was born outside of marriage; are the parents punished for this? Of course not. The children are punished. And not only them, but their children as well; as it says in Deuteronomy (23:2), "no bastard shall enter the kingdom of heaven, not even to the tenth generation...". For those who would say that is the old covenant, such comments only imply that their god is indeed a vacillant, conditional god. Love however, real love, is unconditional, and unlike the God of the Abrahamic religions, Love is Unchanging..

Vicente Marco © 2002

[sahyo]

Love is the Unconditional fulcrum from which Duality effects its motion.


:lol:

[sahyo]

Energy arises from the perception of separation. There is no energy within the Still, Unconditionality of the Now.


:lol:

[sahyo]

Energy manifests as two pairs of 90 degree arch-angles with the sole desire to return to Source, which, it never can.


:lol:

[sahyo]

A wish on the other hand, is an intention, unencumbered by predisposition; to allow Love to flow, and arrive at its own harmonium.


past'intention'futurewhichnot

an'entity' which "allow"s?

love leaving"arrive"ing?
....is harmonynotharmony, vicente?

hehe

[sahyo]

is the ruination of destiny's and self-sabotage of the full expression of ones inherent gifts.


"destiny's"?....a"self"?

[sahyo]

For if a belief saw Love, that belief would instantly dissolve.


:lol:

[sahyo]

The fragrance of love is as a tremendum uncovered by surrendering expectation, and through that immediacy, be witness to a grand preferenceless reality.


separate"be a witness to", vicente?

[DavidS]

Great post on love, belief, trust, etc. etc. etc., vicente. I especially appreciated your 're·fine·ment' of 'significant' 'distinctions', as well as the 'integrated' picture, pertaining to these. Very masterful 'painting', I think.

What follows is not a disagreement with your central thesis, but to add something(s) which I think is/are desirable (in 'my' eyes and for people who are mentally-n-emotionally 'geared' in a way similar to 'me) because I think they are left out of your picture.

Let me use the simple notion/image of a 'number line' as an aid in making my point clear.

There is the 'central point' on the axis, with 'negative' numbers on the left and 'positive' numbers on the right. The things on the left and right correspond to the 'manfestation-bifurcation' thang which you speak of.

You say, very 'beautifully', IMO, that "A wish, in this context [meaning from the 'Origin' or number-line 'Zero' point] , is not synonymous with hope or desire. Hope and desire belong to an anticipation and expectation of the future. Hope and desire ensues from the thought of lack; that things should be other than they are. A wish on the other hand, is an intention, unencumbered by predisposition; to allow Love to flow, and arrive at its own harmonium."

I 'deeply' resonate with this except for the fact that I think that aspects of your 'analysis' are biased in relation to 'negative' aspects of the number line. You say (and thereby 'assert') "Hope and desire ensue from the thought of lack; that things should be other than they are." I say, Yes, that's 'true' of mental-n-emotional 'functioning' on the 'negative' side of the Origin or Zero-point. But only on the 'negative' side, in my view. On the 'positive' side, I would say, "Hope and desire ensue from the thought of abundant possibility; that things could be other than they are."

Everything else in the above quoted para remains identical and still holds 'true', IMO. Do you see why I therefore think your assertions are 'negatively' biased? This is an issue which affects 'Eastern', and more specifically 'Buddhist', philosophy-based thinking-n-valuing generally, IMO. The way I stated this in my book, along with what I think are some of its most 'significant' implications, is:
--------
More than two and a half thousand years ago in what is now India, pondering the human predicament in light of what was then and there believed and known, the one most have since called Buddha ('Buddhi' = 'Intelligence'), because distress was so pervasive, saw suffering as a central feature of earthly Life, and, because people were generally so selfish in aspiration, identified desire itself as the root-cause of such condition. Conse-quently, as a first order of business, he counseled a nirvanic state be sought wherein desire is renounced and, if not relinquished completely, at least held in abeyance.

But, though extremely beneficial in many ways, such advice is partial and therefore deficient unless there’s com-plementary learning. Because it focuses on the problem of suffering and ways to bring about its cessation, those who ‘religiously’ attend to it frequently end up giving short shrift to what is equally, if not more important: the why and wherefore of creative proficiency and joyful expression. While it is true that much that is of negative consequence can be prevented or, at least, overcome by relinquishment of desire, we won’t bring about, and so won’t enjoy, greater 'goodness' unless we comprehend and learn to constructively channel the dynamic of Creativity.

Since Life is Creativity and Creativity is causal purpose in action, desirelessness is far from being an optimal goal (assuming such a state could actually be sustained, it would be totally Life-denying!). It is therefore important that we recognize that focusing on extinguishing desire, more than as a temporary exercise which enables us to develop the equanimity necessary to stop ourselves from being swayed by instinct, since other creatively crucial tasks—namely, developing and extending our capacity for constructive rela-tionship and beneficent generativity—are then neglected, may not only be a waste of precious vitality, but result in atrophy and be crippling in effect in the long run.

For Life to flower and be more fruitful, desire must be discriminatingly refined and selectively accentuated. That is, what we desire and how we go about trying to attain it must be beneficially altered by greater awareness and under-standing of the unitary nature and psychospiritual dynamic of Being. To promote such occurrence, relevant truth has been repeatedly stated; and I do so again: Individually, each of us is a transient aspect of an interwoven, ongoing whole. No one, as such, continues forever, and, except in illusion, no one has, or can ever have, a separate existence of his or her own. We maximize or minimize our own essential validity and creative potency to the degree to which we do or don’t cooperate with and contribute to developments that go on around us. . . .
--------

Getting back to another example of how this pertains to your presentation: You say, "Belief implies doubt." That's 'true' on the negative side of the analogical 'number line'. BUT on the positive side, the 'truth' is that "Belief" implies things like "confidence," "trust", "secure faith", etc. I submit to you, that on the positive side, your statement "To trust in a monotheistic god, or any belief, is committing ones reliance, dependence, certitude, allegiance and potential transcendence to something that is false." not only does not apply, but is itself 'untrue' and 'false'.

On the positive side, what you next say, to wit, "Failure to recognize the false as false, or a belief as that which suppresses, denies, disempowers and disconnects, is the ruination of destiny's and self-sabotage of the full expression of ones inherent gifts." applies to your expressed 'philosophy' regarding Life). I 'hope' you can see this.

In my considered opinion, and what I submit to you is no more and no less than this, vicente, the same 'critique' applies in general to all your statements regarding love, hope, trust, belief, etc.; these are all 'tainted' by the 'negative' bias I allude to, IMO.

This part (and kind of statement you often make, vicente) I agree with wholeheartdely, without any qualification whatsoever: "If we are to trust, let our trust be with something we can never leave and that can never leave us."

Our Life occurs in the context of the 'play' that goes on in and between 'negative' and 'positive' as informed and infused by the central 'origin' or 'infusion' point of all things. This 'play' is the 'drama' of 'good' and 'evil', if you will. I think you are do the 'central' thang great service in your presentations by emphasizing it's 'central' position and 'absolute' value, but I also think you 'miss the point' and do the central thang's LIFE (growth, development, and evolution) manifestation process great disservice because of the 'denigration' stemming from the afore-referenced 'negative' bias.

Hence my frequently expressed 'disagreement' with many of your 'remarks' and often vociferous 'opposition' to many of your 'exhortations'.

Respectfully, nevertheless - David

[sahyo]

david :)

which thinks cannot 'happening' without thoughtdesire-purpose
-desiring-'trying'controlling-selectively accentuated-
must be beneficially altered-desire?

which fears if thinkingdesire was to cease?

[vicente]

I very much appriate the critique dear brother,...such is the caring, considerate review I intend for, but more often than not, that is, in the sense of all forums I share on, this is not the case.

I may see the point your making, about positive verses negative, however, I disagree with your premises.

You state "I agree with wholeheartdely, without any qualification whatsoever: "If we are to trust, let our trust be with something we can never leave and that can never leave us",...yet, why do you think you can trust the positive, and that the positive will never you?

Buddha, from what I understand, realized enlightenment the moment he comprehended that suffering is a consequence of our desire for things to be other than they are,...both negative and positive. In other words, although I do sympathize with egos desire for what we think are positive things, is not the truth that what most view as happiness (physical diversions) is just as useless as suffering?

The ratiocinative answer, that is, what is deducted through the set of all facts, is that either side of the seesaw is not the fulcrum. The fulcrum from which all the Buddhas and avadhutas became cognitive of the wisdom of letting go of both negative and positive, for all situations are neutral, except as we see them as such through the filters of our beliefs.

I can also sympathize with the need many have for hope.

hope n. from ME. hopa, an expectation. 1. expectation of something desired; anticipation of some future event. 2. a guess or belief. 3. that which gives hope; a substance or object hoped for; an expected payoff.

Yet where is the "negative bias"? The quest for "abundant possibility" still ensues from a thought of lack,...that one does not have abundance now.

From a negative-positive, or dualistic viewpoint, yes, I can see where the positive, for most, would be more desirable. But what about from the point of view of the "central Zero"? Isn't that the point of view the Buddhas had in mind? Isn't that the point of view of Light, that is, the Still Light at the so-called speed of light? Isn't that the point of view of the Now,...not the adj. meaning "present time", but the noun meaning "present instant". There is no instant in time. There is no positive-negative at the "central point" of an axis.

Again, I very much appreciate the time you spent articulating your views,...it is most helpful to me, and perhaps can shape my dialogue in this art of words.

Vicente
:)

[DavidS]

Hi vicente,

I am glad you 'see' what I am trying to get at. There is much 'convergence' between our 'visions'. Re: Originally posted by vicente@Nov 21 2003, 12:59 PM
You state "I agree with wholeheartdely, without any qualification whatsoever: "If we are to trust, let our trust be with something we can never leave and that can never leave us",...yet, why do you think you can trust the positive, and that the positive will never you?, I realized after I posted that didn't make myself clear; IOW, that what I said could be misinterpreted.

The THANG that I think is absolutely trustworthy (the thang "we can never leave and that can never leave us"), is the same 'central' THANG that you reference.

It is not that I think that the 'positive' will never 'leave' you, me, or anyone else. It just that I think it's OK, indeed more than OK because it is potentially very beneficially creative, to entertain what I am designating as 'positive' kinds of wishes, hopes, desires, etc. As in the case of a football quarterback whose 'pass completion percentage' is much higher if he 'believes' -along the way - that it is really possible for him to complete each pass he attempts (even though the facts are that 'uncertainties' involved make it so he won't complete at least some of them). S/He will be (more/) able to do this if and as s/he trusts the central THANG the most (i.e., 'absolutely'). IOW, one really cannot 'lose', whether one 'wins' or 'loses' in 'conventional' terms, i.e., whether one 'succeeds' or 'fails' in terms of completing this or that 'pass'. Pro quarterbacks are really 'cool' custom·ers in this regard.

On the other hand, if one doesn't 'believe', and 'wish', and 'hope' and 'trust' that there's a 'significant' possibility that one can 'successfully' complete a pass, if and as one keeps 'trying' (despite any 'incompletions' along the way), one is not likely to attempt to do so, at least not wholeheartedly. I submit that the 'game' of ACT·IVELY-GROWING-LOVE-JOY-LIFE (I am not speaking of the 'game' people make out of getting OUT of LIFE and just sitting around in a static pool of BLISS) requires that one play IT for all one's 'worth', which is 'best' done when and if one trusts and 'rests' in the 'truth' of the central THANG the most. But "no belief," "no desire", "no wish", "no hope" does not serve such ACT·IVELY-GROWING-LOVE-JOY-LIFE 'purpose'.

Speaking or 'autenticity' vs. 'inauthenticity', vicente, IMO you personal-actively demonstrate what I am speaking about even though you deny it in your verbally expressed philosophy. You really 'try' to 'complete' and 'connect with others' via meaningful pass-transmission-reception-'completions'. You are a very 'sporting' fella in this regard, who, despite the fact that your and I often verbally 'aim' at 'opposite' (at least opposite-'seeming') 'goals', I therefore feel great 'admiration' for and 'kinship' with (not that I don't also sometimes at least really want to 'beat' you :D -- in a 'sporting' way, that is).

QUITE unlike 'asheera' in this regard, your 'you' is - again, this is just my opinion, neither more nor less than this it is.

I hope the above is a more clarifying than convoluting 'pass' on my part -- wouldn't have gotten this far with you however, if I 'minded' target-'missing' - couldn't/wouldn't have done it without 'trust' in the central THANG speak of.

BTW, I still disagree with your way of seeing/characterizing the 'abundance' possibility I reference as being no more than a reflection of lack-consciousness. CREATIVITY just LOVES to CREATE 'cuz THAT is the 'fulfillment' of ITS ESSENCE·ial NATURE -- not because It 'fears' or is 'aversive' to 'lack' (as you and asheera still continue to think-n-assert).

Imagine-watch kids sand-castle-playing for 'verification' in this regard. One can let go of 'negative' biases if one fully 'internalizes' this 'truth' (my guess, and it's only a guess, is that this probably, not necessary 'definitely', also means 'clearing' your own internal 'fear' of 'lack' syndromes, since, the 'truth' I speak of is so 'clear' to me, I can't imagine where else your 'lack' fixations and repeat-assertions may be coming from).

If what I say above is 'wrong', I 'hope' :) you at least can see that my 'intentions' youward are not 'malicious'.

Salut! - David

[a random hack]

Buddha, from what I understand, realized enlightenment the moment he comprehended that suffering is a consequence of our desire for things to be other than they are,...both negative and positive. In other words, although I do sympathize with egos desire for what we think are positive things, is not the truth that what most view as happiness (physical diversions) is just as useless as suffering?
Useless? For what?